Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ)

(Case T‑386/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark elite BY MONDARIZ — Earlier Community and international figurative marks ELITE — Language of appeal proceedings — Time limits — Admissibility of an appeal to the Board of Appeal — Rule 48(2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Appeal document in a language other than that of the proceedings — Period of four months from the date of notification of the decision to remedy the irregularity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 48(2), 49(1), and 96(1)) (see paras 37-43)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65, 67, 100-102)

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. 70)

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 73, 82, 83)

5. 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 marks elite BY MONDARIZ and elite (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 105, 108, 109, 114)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2012 (Case R 9/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 June 2012 (Case R 9/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL;

2. Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Elite Licensing Company;

3. Orders Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val to pay its own costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ)

(Case T‑386/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark elite BY MONDARIZ — Earlier Community and international figurative marks ELITE — Language of appeal proceedings — Time limits — Admissibility of an appeal to the Board of Appeal — Rule 48(2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Appeal document in a language other than that of the proceedings — Period of four months from the date of notification of the decision to remedy the irregularity (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 48(2), 49(1), and 96(1)) (see paras 37-43)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65, 67, 100-102)

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. 70)

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 73, 82, 83)

5. 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 marks elite BY MONDARIZ and elite (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 105, 108, 109, 114)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2012 (Case R 9/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 June 2012 (Case R 9/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Aguas de Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL;

2. Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Elite Licensing Company;