Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:83
Date: 2016-02-18
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France;Sweden

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 27) 2. 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47-49, 51, 52, 103, 104) 3. 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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 61, 62) 4. 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 — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 76, 77, 84, 85) 5. 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR and figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 92-101, 108, 110) Re: Two actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA. Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls, in Case T‑84/14 points 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 November 2013 (joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA; 2. Dismisses, in Case T‑97/14, the action brought by Harry’s New York Bar; 3. Orders Harry’s New York Bar to bear its own costs, to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court and to pay the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court.