Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2016 —

Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

(Case T‑549/14)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Castello — Earlier national and EU figurative marks Castelló — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see para. 36)

2. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 37-39)

3. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Application of the criteria to the case in question — Determination of a minimal quantitative use threshold — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 40, 41)

4. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 42)

5. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 43)

6. 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 — Word mark Castello and figurative marks Castelló (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 54, 65, 96, 111-115)

7. 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 62, 110)

8. 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 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 67, 68, 72)

9. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 97, 98)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar and Lidl Stiftung & Co.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2014 (Joined Cases R 1233/2013-2 and R 1258/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Horno del Espinar, SL and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG insofar as the Board of Appeal held that there was a likelihood of confusion as regards the frozen fruit and vegetables in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by EUIPO;