Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Investrónica v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)

(Case T‑149/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO — Earlier national figurative mark micro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions’

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 17-19)

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 MIKRO and micro (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 27, 54, 55, 60, 62)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Possibility for the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Olympus Imaging Corp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4);

2. Allows the opposition with regard to the goods covered by Class 9 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Photographic apparatus and instruments, digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, and parts and accessories therefor as far as included in Class 9’;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA;

4. Orders Olympus Imaging Corp. to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — Investrónica v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)

(Case T‑149/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO — Earlier national figurative mark micro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions’

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 17-19)

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 MIKRO and micro (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 27, 54, 55, 60, 62)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Possibility for the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Olympus Imaging Corp.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4);

2. Allows the opposition with regard to the goods covered by Class 9 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Photographic apparatus and instruments, digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, and parts and accessories therefor as far as included in Class 9’;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA;