Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 —

Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)

(Case T‑363/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC natural beauty — Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) 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 22, 81)

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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 — 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. 25)

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 — Figurative mark CLEANIC natural beauty and word mark CLINIQUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 47, 82, 83, 85)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 32-35)

6. 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 45)

7. 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 51, 52)

8. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Figurative mark CLEANIC natural beauty and word mark CLINIQUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 91, 92, 99)

9. 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 — Coexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 95, 96)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 1134/2011‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Harper Hygienics S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;