Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)

(Case T‑620/16)

(European trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Idealogistic — Earlier national word mark idéa logistique — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Opposition proceedings—Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties—Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 19)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 26-28, 35, 42, 82)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Determination of the relevant public—Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Idealogistic and word mark idéa logistique (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31, 36, 43, 53, 85, 88-90)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 50)

6. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 75)

7. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 59)

8. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision—Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 91)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2016 (Case R 1435/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;