Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 —

Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)

(Case T‑89/11)

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

1. 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 28-30, 68)

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 — Word marks NANU and NAMMU (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 49, 70-73)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2010 (Case R 641/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vincci Hoteles, SA and Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 —

Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)

(Case T‑89/11)

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

1. 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 28-30, 68)

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 — Word marks NANU and NAMMU (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 49, 70-73)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-52)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2010 (Case R 641/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vincci Hoteles, SA and Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;