Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2014 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)

(Case T‑576/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark PROTEKT — Earlier Community word marks PROTECTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 17)

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), and (2)(a)(i)) (see paras 28-33, 46)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 63)

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 PROTEKT and word marks PROTECTA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-45, 48)

5. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Scope — Absolute grounds for refusal invoked by the trade mark applicant — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7 and 8(1)(b)) (see para. 55)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 59, 60)

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 — Weak distinctive character of the dominant element (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 65)

8. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 76-78)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2012 (Case R 700/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Capital Safety Group EMEA SAS and Mr Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;