Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —

Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)

(Case T‑463/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark MB — Earlier Community figurative mark MB&P — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea — Lawfulness (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Interpretation having regard to the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see para. 29)

3. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see paras 30-33)

4. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 34)

5. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Simultaneous use of several signs (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3)) (see para. 43)

6. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 42(2) and (3), and 78(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2) (see paras 52-54)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65, 144)

8. 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 — Word mark MB and figurative mark MB&P (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 76, 88, 143, 147)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 506/2011‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Müller-Boré & Partner Patentanwälte, on the one hand, and Mr Eugen Popp and Mr Stefan M. Zech, on the other hand.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;