Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2014 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)

(Case T‑216/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark IMPERIA — Earlier Community figurative mark IMPERIAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — 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 19, 39)

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 marks IMPERIA and IMPERIAL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 54, 55)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 40, 45)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2011 (Case R 1036/2010‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sopralex & Vosmarques SA and Progust, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Progust, SL to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2014 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)

(Case T‑216/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark IMPERIA — Earlier Community figurative mark IMPERIAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — 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 19, 39)

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 marks IMPERIA and IMPERIAL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 54, 55)

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 — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 40, 45)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2011 (Case R 1036/2010‑1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sopralex & Vosmarques SA and Progust, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;