Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 –

Harper Hygienics v EUIPO

(Case C‑474/15 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CLEANIC intimate’ — Application for registration — Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion’

| 1. | Appeals — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 20, 21) |

| 2. | Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Scope of the obligation to state reasons (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 25, 30) |

| 3. | Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 31, 46, 56) |

| 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 40, 43, 51, 52) |

| 5. | Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 58) |

| 6. | 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 para. 70) |

| 7. | Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 78) |

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |

| 2. | Harper Hygienics SA is ordered to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)