Case C-196/11 P

Formula One Licensing BV

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Global Sports Media Ltd

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ — Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive element — Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark — Likelihood of confusion’

Summary of the Judgment

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Acknowledgement of a certain degree of distinctiveness of an earlier national mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b), 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii); Directive 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b))

It follows from the coexistence of Community trade marks and national trade marks, and from the fact that the registration of the latter does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), and that judicial review in respect of them does not fall within the jurisdiction of the General Court, that in proceedings opposing the registration of a Community trade mark, the validity of national trade marks may not be called into question.

Therefore, in such opposition proceedings, it is not possible to find, with regard to a sign identical to a trade mark protected in a Member State, an absolute ground for refusal, such as the lack of distinctive character, provided by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and Article 3(1)(b) of Directives 89/104 and 2008/95 on trade marks. In this respect, it should be noted that the characterisation of a sign as descriptive or generic is equivalent to denying its distinctive character.

It is true that, where an opposition, based on the existence of an earlier national trade mark, is filed against the registration of a Community trade mark, the Office and, consequently, the General Court, must verify the way in which the relevant public perceives the sign identical to the national trade mark in the mark applied for and evaluate, if necessary, the degree of distinctiveness of that sign.

However, their verification has limits. Their verification may not culminate in a finding of the lack of distinctive character of a sign identical to a registered and protected national trade mark, since such a finding would not be compatible with the coexistence of Community trade marks and national trade marks or with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, read in conjunction with Article 8(2)(a)(ii) thereof.

Such a finding would be detrimental to national trade marks identical to a sign considered as being devoid of distinctive character, as the registration of such a Community trade mark would bring about a situation likely to eliminate the national protection of those marks. Accordingly, such a finding would not respect the system established by Regulation No 40/94, which is based on the coexistence of Community trade marks and national trade marks as stated by the fifth recital in the preamble to that regulation, given that the validity of an international or national trade mark may be called into question for lack of distinctive character only in cancellation proceedings brought in the Member State concerned by virtue of Article 3(1)(b) of Directives 89/104 and 2008/95.

It should be noted that Article 8(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 expressly provides, in opposition proceedings, for trade marks registered in a Member State to be taken into consideration as earlier trade marks.

It follows that, in order to avoid infringing Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, it is necessary to acknowledge a certain degree of distinctiveness of an earlier national mark on which an opposition against the registration of a Community trade mark is based.

(see paras 40-47)

Case C-196/11 P

Formula One Licensing BV

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Global Sports Media Ltd

‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘F1-Live’ — Opposition by the proprietor of international and national word marks F1 and Community figurative mark F1 Formula 1 — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive element — Removal of the protection provided to an earlier national trade mark — Likelihood of confusion’

Summary of the Judgment

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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Acknowledgement of a certain degree of distinctiveness of an earlier national mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b), 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii); Directive 2008/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b))

It follows from the coexistence of Community trade marks and national trade marks, and from the fact that the registration of the latter does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), and that judicial review in respect of them does not fall within the jurisdiction of the General Court, that in proceedings opposing the registration of a Community trade mark, the validity of national trade marks may not be called into question.

Therefore, in such opposition proceedings, it is not possible to find, with regard to a sign identical to a trade mark protected in a Member State, an absolute ground for refusal, such as the lack of distinctive character, provided by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and Article 3(1)(b) of Directives 89/104 and 2008/95 on trade marks. In this respect, it should be noted that the characterisation of a sign as descriptive or generic is equivalent to denying its distinctive character.

It is true that, where an opposition, based on the existence of an earlier national trade mark, is filed against the registration of a Community trade mark, the Office and, consequently, the General Court, must verify the way in which the relevant public perceives the sign identical to the national trade mark in the mark applied for and evaluate, if necessary, the degree of distinctiveness of that sign.

However, their verification has limits. Their verification may not culminate in a finding of the lack of distinctive character of a sign identical to a registered and protected national trade mark, since such a finding would not be compatible with the coexistence of Community trade marks and national trade marks or with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, read in conjunction with Article 8(2)(a)(ii) thereof.

Such a finding would be detrimental to national trade marks identical to a sign considered as being devoid of distinctive character, as the registration of such a Community trade mark would bring about a situation likely to eliminate the national protection of those marks. Accordingly, such a finding would not respect the system established by Regulation No 40/94, which is based on the coexistence of Community trade marks and national trade marks as stated by the fifth recital in the preamble to that regulation, given that the validity of an international or national trade mark may be called into question for lack of distinctive character only in cancellation proceedings brought in the Member State concerned by virtue of Article 3(1)(b) of Directives 89/104 and 2008/95.

It should be noted that Article 8(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 expressly provides, in opposition proceedings, for trade marks registered in a Member State to be taken into consideration as earlier trade marks.

It follows that, in order to avoid infringing Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, it is necessary to acknowledge a certain degree of distinctiveness of an earlier national mark on which an opposition against the registration of a Community trade mark is based.

(see paras 40-47)