Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v OHIM

(Case C-327/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ — Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’’

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44-46)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 62)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09 United States Polo Association v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ for goods in Classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27 against Decision R 886/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 March 2009 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division partly refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘POLO-POLO’ for goods in Classes 24, 35 and 39 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders United States Polo Association to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v OHIM

(Case C-327/11 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ — Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’’

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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44-46)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite trade mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 62)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09 United States Polo Association v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ for goods in Classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27 against Decision R 886/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 March 2009 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division partly refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘POLO-POLO’ for goods in Classes 24, 35 and 39 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;