Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:187
Date: 2015-03-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - inadmissible;Appeal - successful

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 19 March 2015 1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment solely on the basis of the dominant element — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) 1. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, as regards the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the signs at issue, must be based on the overall impression given by the signs, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. It follows from the case-law that, in some circumstances, the assessment of the similarity may be made solely on the basis of the dominant element of a composite mark. However, that case-law concerns only exceptional situations, and it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible in the overall impression conveyed by it that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. (see paras 31, 32, 38) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 47-49) 3. The duty incumbent upon the General Court under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the General Court under the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and under Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to state reasons for its judgments does not require the General Court to provide an account that follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments articulated by the parties to the case. The reasoning of the General Court may therefore be implicit, on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know the reasons why that Court has not upheld their arguments and that it provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its powers of review. (see para. 54)