Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2016 —

Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E)

(Case T‑645/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark E — Earlier Community figurative mark E — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 42, 43)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 59, 60)

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 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 71, 83-85, 89)

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 marks E and E (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 91, 99-101, 109, 110)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 93)

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 — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 113, 114)

7. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Absence of any provision to the contrary (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2)) (see paras 121-123)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2013 (Case R 329/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Etam SAS and Mrs Evcharis Nezi.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the cross-claim;