Order — ECLI:EU:C:2012:403
Date: 2012-06-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case C-599/11 P) Language of the case: German Parties Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin) Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG Form of order sought Set aside the judgment under appeal; order Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal, or, on the contested basis that the appeal is dismissed, order that such costs be shared. Pleas in law and main arguments The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH. In the appellant's view the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds. First, the General Court erred in law in determining, under new criteria, that there was a likelihood of confusion in the light of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. According to the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient, in order for the existence of a conceptual similarity to be established, that both terms are taken from a common overarching term, and that, although conceptually different, they do not contrast with each other, which is inconsistent with existing case-law. Second, the General Court erred in law in determining that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking all the relevant and accepted criteria for the assessment of the similarity of trade marks into account. In the present case, the only common element is at the end of the mark cited in opposition. According to settled case-law, consumers generally pay more attention to the beginning of a trade mark than to the end. ____________