Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2017 —

Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)

(Case T‑224/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark Out Door — Earlier EU word mark OUTDOOR PRO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Scope—Relative grounds for refusal, excluding absolute grounds raised in observations of third parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7, 8, 41 and 42) (see paras 21, 22)

2. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Opposition proceedings—Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 23)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 31, 32, 48)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 Out Door and word mark OUTDOOR PRO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 38, 65)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

6. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 40)

7. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 on the market—Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 55)

8. EU trade mark—Lodging of application for EU trade mark—Right of priority—Trade mark application accompanied by a claim for priority—Examination of the formal and substantive conditions by OHIM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 29) (see para. 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 2302/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Messe Friedrichshafen.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;