Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 —
Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX)(Case T‑444/12)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LINEX — Earlier national word mark LINES PERLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 76(1), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 65)
2.                     Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see paras 29, 30)
3.                     Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Concept (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see para. 51)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks LINEX and LINES PERLA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 62-64, 70)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tenimenti Angelini SpA and Novartis AG.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4);
2.
Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant;
3.
Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.