Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — Hrbek v OHIM

(Case C‑42/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded’

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para.40)

2. 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(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 44)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law made by the General Court — Whether admissible (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 53, 54)

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 — Impact (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56-61)

5. 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 — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) (see para. 84)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 in Case T‑434/10 Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant for the figurative mark comprising the word elements ‘ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT’ for goods in Classes 18, 24, 25 and 28 against Decision R 1441/2009-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010, rejecting the action brought against the decision of the opposition division partially refusing registration of that mark in the context of the opposition made by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘alpine’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Václav Hrbek is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — Hrbek v OHIM

(Case C‑42/12 P)

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded’

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para.40)

2. 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(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 44)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law made by the General Court — Whether admissible (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 53, 54)

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 — Impact (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56-61)

5. 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 — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1), TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) (see para. 84)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 in Case T‑434/10 Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant for the figurative mark comprising the word elements ‘ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT’ for goods in Classes 18, 24, 25 and 28 against Decision R 1441/2009-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010, rejecting the action brought against the decision of the opposition division partially refusing registration of that mark in the context of the opposition made by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘alpine’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.