Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 —

Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)

(Case T‑363/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC intimate — Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation 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 22, 79)

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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

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 — 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. 24)

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 mark CLEANIC intimate and word mark CLINIQUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 46, 80, 81, 83)

5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 31-34)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 44)

7. 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 mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51)

8. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Figurative mark CLEANIC intimate and word mark CLINIQUE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 89, 90, 97)

9. 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 — Coexistence of two marks on a given market (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 93, 94)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2013 (Case R 606/2012‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Harper Hygienics S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;