Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)

(Case T‑258/08)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

| 1. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Partial use—Effect—Concept of ‘parts of the products or services’ covered by the registration  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(2) and (3))  (see paras 34, 35) |

| 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 para. 49) |

| 3. | 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 para. 51) |

| 4. | 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 of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 53, 55-57, 66) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Word mark Diacor and figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 69-74) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)