Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 February 2016 —

Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B)

(Case T‑169/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MOTO B — Earlier non-registered national figurative marks MOTOBI — Relative ground for refusal — Evidence that the earlier non-registered marks are well known — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 2868/95 — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 23)

2. 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, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 31-33)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — No contrary provision (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(1), and 50(1)) (see paras 41-46)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 59, 60)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark well known in a Member State — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks MOTO B and MOTOBI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (2)(c)) (see paras 74-83)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 95/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Benelli Q.J. Srl and Demharter GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;