Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 April 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)

Case T‑568/12

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FOCUS extreme — Earlier national word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 46)

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 mark FOCUS extreme and word mark FOCUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 27, 42, 51)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2012 (Case R 2327/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Derby Cycle Werke GmbH and Sofia Golam.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sofia Golam to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 April 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)

Case T‑568/12

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FOCUS extreme — Earlier national word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 46)

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 mark FOCUS extreme and word mark FOCUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 27, 42, 51)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2012 (Case R 2327/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Derby Cycle Werke GmbH and Sofia Golam.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;