Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 —

Zehnder Group International v EUIPO — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

(Case T‑267/14)

‛EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark comfotherm — Earlier national word mark KOMFOTHERM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Relevant public — Interdependence of factors’

| 1. | EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 68, 69) |

| 2. | 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 — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 43, 44) |

| 3. | EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks comfotherm and KOMFOTHERM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 26, 39, 45, 52, 66, 71) |

| 4. | EU trade mark — Lodging of the application for the EU trade mark — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark — Requirements of clarity and precision — Determination, by the competent authorities and economic operators, of the extent of the protection conferred by the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 26(1)(c); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(2)) (see para. 34) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 55, 63) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question — Overlap between two categories of goods or services with different purposes (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2014 (Case R 1318/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG and Zehnder Group International AG.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Zehnder Group International AG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)