Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2016 —

LR Health & Beauty Systems v OHIM — Robert McBride (LR nova pure.)

(Case T‑202/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LR nova pure. — Earlier international word mark NOVA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 21, 94-96)

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 — Figurative mark LR nova pure. and word mark NOVA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 90, 98)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Determination of dominant component(s)) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-33, 53, 54, 64-66, 77, 78, 87)

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 — 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. 38)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 39)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 40, 41)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of an international mark as having a certain degree of distinctiveness (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b), and 8(1)(b), and (2)(a)(iv)) (see para. 42)

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Possibility of a visual similarity between a figurative mark and a verbal mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 272/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Robert McBride Ltd and LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;