Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (OJO sunglasses)
(Case T‑792/16)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark OJO sunglasses — Earlier international word mark oio — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
1.      EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 17-19, 57)
2.      EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 22)
3.      EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Figurative mark OJO sunglasses and word mark oio
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 25, 26, 34, 36, 41-43, 47, 56, 62, 63, 67-71)
4.      EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 28, 29)
5.      EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 30)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 (Case R 32/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Eschenbach Optik and N & C Franchise.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders N & C Franchise Ltd to pay the costs.