CELEX: 62003CJ0106
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-12
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12  October  2004. # Vedial SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word and figurative mark HUBERT - Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 - Capacity of OHIM as defendant before the Court of First Instance. # Case C-106/03 P.

Case C-106/03 P
      Vedial SA
      v
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      (Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Word and figurative mark HUBERT – Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 – Capacity of OHIM as defendant before the Court of First Instance)
      Summary of the Judgment
      Community trade mark – Review procedures – Review before the Community Courts – Procedural role of the Office – Opposition
            proceedings – No power to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First Instance
      (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 133(2); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(2))
      In proceedings concerning an action against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on an opposition to registration of a Community mark based on the likelihood of confusion
         with an earlier mark, the Office does not have the power to alter before the Court of First Instance the terms of the dispute,
         as delimited in the respective claims and allegations of the applicant for registration and of the opposing party.
      
      Although under Article 133(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Office is the defendant in proceedings
         before the Court of First Instance, the proceedings before that Court are intended to resolve a dispute between the applicant
         for registration and the holder of an earlier mark.
      
      Therefore, any finding that the Office has the power to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First Instance
         defeats the legitimate expectation of the party which was successful before the Board of Appeal, in so far as the purpose
         of proceedings before the Court of First Instance is, pursuant to Article 63(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to review the legality
         of the decision of the Board of Appeal.
      
      (see paras 26-27, 36)

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
            
            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)12 October 2004(1)
         
         
            
         
               (Appeal  –  Community trade mark  –  Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94  –  Likelihood of confusion  –  Word and figurative mark HUBERT  –  Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 –  Capacity of OHIM as defendant before the Court of First Instance)
               
             In Case C-106/03 P,APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged at the Court on  27 February 2003,
            
            
            Vedial SA, established in Ludres (France), represented by T. van Innis, G. Glas and F. Herbert, lawyers, with an address for service
            in Luxembourg, 
            
            
            appellant,
            
             the other party to the proceedings being:
            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by O. Montalto and P. Geroulakos, acting as Agents,
            defendant at first instance,
            
            THE COURT (Second Chamber),,
            
             composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur), and N. Colneric,
             Judges,
            
             Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass,
             having regard to the written procedure,
            
            after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 July 2004,
         gives the following
         
         
         Judgment
         1
            
          In its appeal Vedial SA (‘Vedial’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-110/01 (Vedial v OHIM – France Distribution (HUBERT) [2002] ECR II-5275, ‘the judgment under appeal’), dismissing its action for annulment of the decision of the First Board
         of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1)
         in which the opposition by Vedial to registration of the word and figurative mark HUBERT sought by France Distribution was
         rejected (‘the contested decision’).
         
         
            
               Legal framework
            
         
         2
            
          Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994
         L 11, p. 1) provides:
         ‘1.     Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered:
         …;
         
         (b)
            if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services
               covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the
               earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade
               mark.
            
         
          2.       for the purposes of paragraph 1, “Earlier trade marks” means:
         
         (a)
            trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application
               for registration of the Community trade mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those
               trade marks:
            
         
         … 
         
         
               (ii)
                  trade marks registered in a Member State … .’
               
         
         
         Background to the dispute
         
         3
            
          On 1 April 1996, France Distribution filed with OHIM an application for registration of a composite word and figurative mark
         comprising the name ‘HUBERT’ in black stylised capital letters bordered with white, surmounted by a bust of a chef of jovial
         appearance raising his right arm with upturned thumb.
          iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAHgAAABiCAYAAACbKRcvAAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAAAlwSFlz
         AAAOxAAADsQBlSsOGwAAABl0RVh0U29mdHdhcmUATWljcm9zb2Z0IE9mZmljZX/tNXEAACEL
         SURBVHhe7d1ZkFbVtQfwIyAgKDM2cQRBZFAUlKiIxiEqDlHjEI1TBqtyU5WXVFJ5yGNiVd5S
         lUpV8mAqyYNJTG7MVHEe4kg0KE4IIoKIGmmRSYZGVPDu3/qyOictSDfKvf1xv1PV1V9/55x9
         9l7/tf5r2Huf7rd9+/YPqtaxV0rgxhtv3KffXjmy1qA6JdACeC9XhhbALYD3cgns5cNrWXAL
         4L1cAnv58FoW3AJ4L5fAXj68lgW3AN67JbDPPvvEAD/4YO8s6P2/teCuwO6tQDcdwGlpCUhP
         +SXv27ZtW/X2229Xr732WjVo0KDq4IMPrvr27Vv179+/cs3eYtFNBTDBb9q0qerXr1+13377
         9RiEBLe9vb168MEHq+eee64aMGBAdcghh0Sbo0ePrj796U9Xo0aNCpDLREz8buajqQBmVYMH
         D+62z+wKztatW6vFixdXf/jDHwLcCy+8sLrkkkvCgt95553qpZdeqh599NFq0qTJ1YQJE6r3
         33+vGjhwYI8VqTcpRFMBTHB10LoCWKdV59Dwxo0bK8Ci3xdffLH69a9/Xb388svVxRdfXF12
         2WXV8OHDAw8gH3HEEdX8+fOrv//98eoLX7iyOuGE6U0NrnE1HcB163jvvfcCANa37777dtI2
         cDdv3lzdc8891dNPP93pW1EuBgDuOeecUw0dOjSaSypGzbNnz64WLbqpuv/+ewrgh1cjRozo
         NmP0JsvNvjQlwABcvXp19cILL8Q4Xn311Wrq1KnVcccdFxbOctHw7bffXp144omFcieFIgBw
         7NixARqL7tOnT1i3c6jYwR8fffTR1UMPPVT9/ve/r6699tpOt9AbAdxVn3o9wIQPtDodv/vu
         u9W8efMCpBkzZhRK/XuAAGDHs88+G9Z78sknV1//+tfDurUDUD95+M65tGK/UfYFF1xQrV//
         dvWPf/wjqHvOnDkRgDVjZN2rAc6oOQFCxej07rvvDlAESevXr6+OOeaYsOAE4Mknn6zGjRtX
         XX755Z2WWQfV51Qav1H9li1bIqL2c+ihh1aXXnpZ9fOf/zyedeCBB1bnnnvuroylV57v1QBn
         1Cy6veuuuyrASZMmTpxYffWrN4TV3nzzzdX48eOrww8/POgWQGPGjKmeeeaZ6pVXXqk+9alP
         /YfVJrh+o3LPwAT7779/p68Felvb6KIkh1dLliyu3nzzzV4JXnc61asBJmiFCP6QH7366qtL
         6vJ+9cQT8wu19q+ef35hyV/7V0cdNTHGmnQrR5bXLliwIHwuv1ovkIisV65cWb3++usRoGEA
         VuuadAkKHlwB30yBmvXotQADF5jyUv7v1FNPjSjZ91OmTKoOOGBwAWBrkfv2UpHaENTNvy5f
         vjyCLynP2WefHRZcB/ett96KAEw6hHqHDBkSINYB9tz777+/mjt3bvWZz3ymmjlzZrPi27vT
         JGD985//rM4888wIdjKdQcV85sSJRxZAX67+/Oc/R4lx8uTJ1W233Ra575e//OUoP9bBdQ9K
         f+KJJ6rPf/7z1emnnx7UnGXLrF7dcccd1SOPPBJFEEqi7WYMsGhlr7VgnQPUoEGDw8rSdwqI
         fM/qWCzgWaW0ycFHAwpwFML1/DKAHn/88aDtSy+9NH743jxYrLRq3bp1Qe9f+tKXqpNOOinu
         oxi7UxrtDWbfqwEG3qBBgp9GPRhwqlGAa2trqzo6OqLkeP7550dKBAjWmMBSAOD6Tir1i1/8
         ovrsZz8b1gvceg4sXx45cmQEcix/1qxZoUAZhLUseA+o60EHHVRA3V6i2PYS0Y4Ny0LD6W9F
         yqzs+OOPDzCcF4gpRypSnHfeefE9Skbj2kP3rsuIO7vN4o899tgA1CwTZcm6dzNPOPRKC2Zx
         gEHNqkoqVSxQJD106LBShlRffrcAv7pUpYYHRaNQ1wuu+M7nn3+++tnPfhZRuEN7ypNA1j6Q
         09oB6G+/165dGxF2Fk32gN7+rzbZKwFGn0mJABbktLevLFHtYwHAhAnjCiXPKinQYdXDDz9U
         LPbmmDgQNDncc9RRRwU9Axhww4YNC8tctmxZfO87vjz9uSiaS8iypWv2hqNXAkz4KFJeK5ia
         MmVKWC9LXrhwYSlqjI1zGzZsKinR4shXMxBjlTlxr8pl0gFYdUpes2ZN+G/3KU0CVWmT8rje
         eWCfccYZH6qENRvovRLgevGfQOWlrBi9ipaB+9hjj1V//etfo1hx8sknRSUr0x2+0zWoG5Dy
         aFaNdlW5TBeaZRJMHXbYYeFrFTOkWM6xfqmSfPrb3/5206ZIvTpNysAG2MDlQ6UwChSAlQ4B
         dOjQIWGJLF4UbAqwb98+RSm2lULG6ALWlOqaa64u1aqpndbIXytysF6fKQMfrLZtupASSJsw
         Rla2WlH0HuSuBJt1mSkCLKsEKvAFVNInJUn0vG3b9urOO++sVqx4tbruuqvLjNPxxec2Oggo
         1S0AZ3DlOxTOHbBoB/DfeOONUKQDDjhgD45uzzbdKyl6Z0MWEEmRAJx1YhaIhk0s+M13Llq0
         uNDt7dX06ceWn+kBblpgThvWixwCL+1JwZzX/ltvrY7P0qdmtd5eTdE7Alkg5UfwBEwH60Kx
         ChR8J4rdsGFd5M7Dh5/ROZOULMCfU5KsblEa67RE2a7R7vz5TxfL7Yj6t+9aAO9ZlulsHbUC
         dNWqVQGIMiTAWBn/LHAyL+w7gROwfJ8+PPNfCoHeBWxmkwRguTbLPZs2bSh17gkxLdnM4Dad
         BWfpUMfTIlljTkSoM5ukB5prWTUqtkIShQNUJA04+TFaphC5Nku72IEijBnT1vTW23QAAzXz
         2aw3G4Tv+GJAr1ixIoATFbNkFm++l5WyThTvewwA2GSCbFuwRjnUuveGo6mCLIvlRL8KEehZ
         1AtowAEo0yWUzcdu2rSxBFwvFAofUgKoo4K2WbFzFgLkAgFW7l4RukKKwEy7yRTNvAC+aQDm
         C1mftVF8sBzV3/UFeZmzouigp377lutWlIh4VUmlnotrKYcZJbNHLBkdS4e06X5KZKIfhdvl
         gM4dzTon3DQAEzIA+ExLWc0YWQyAlusrJevpT9a0N2zY0LlNBXXLka2YBBoqlvsqbqhH89FL
         ly6t7rvvvur73/9+ddFFF5VF8F9oWrZuKoCTMvnUG264ofrtb38bYLA6lM1CsyadiORKTJbK
         SlGx64cNG1HAnBHLf/hidJ3zx0BW+xaVe4Z7rrvuus7lt8kUzYB60wGcQiV0vldw5QBwLn8F
         WPpmv1kqv2oSXwWsYeWNgM0ME6uu72CgKNp1vXO//OUvA3zMkctsm2XPUlMCrGT5u9/9Lvxw
         VppEw2aCAADAnO9Vahw+fEQJqsYVC+wX6ZLihmDLPRbOZw6cDFFfx2XBnb8t1PvTn/4UlJ27
         IFoW/AlLAHjKir/5zW9i9SRwc2oRFbM6Fqu4wTcDws/atWvK5P9N8Z1Zp9GjxxR6nhalzIED
         Gwwg+KIMLDznhZOKBVvOmeRg8dZzsfhmqHI1jQUTJhBzGk/KAwi+FdU6BFNpwa5l0UBy3Wmn
         nRb5sClCFN6nDyvfN67HBLfeemvk0MqTVlK6pm7JFhMA1apM1n/FFVfEFGNvB7lpAAYg6zX/
         i4L9KDcCIVc81icU6uSBktev31DuXx7VLWBbx5WHaFw9GtBSJ1aOmutTlp5HQb7zne9EhP3T
         n/60uuqqqyKql1fXI/lPmLg+VnNNATBBs0aL7FBpFigAmlN9CbRAi/XywYIwv1nw+vVro9hx
         7rlnh89l+doFzOjRB5ZAbL8Al4VnJO5Z2MFCA+1rSz38yiuvjLnnH//4x+HDrcHOlSEfC409
         cHNTAGzcfK55X9Fz+sgMivjZ3OzNL/sBblvbgcUax5eUZ2KkQ4CkKF7hQEkAqZSp7nzNNVeF
         BVselMUNk/5Y47vf/W6IPn2yqNwyXUt8suTZW6tdHwvgOoXtAeWLJrMEaSKBQOsVpfSvhMtq
         gZWWecIJJ8QSWYsAGv55Yyx6R+uARcP8uDb8dr1JCVSc42KxyRb18blHzdozBWCODPJ6W468
         WwDXZ3IIlyDyqAcmXYVS/zvb6KoYO5qeQ5OKFF2FmIGXNjJdcp1ChT2+/fvvWz3wwEOF1tcV
         IE0hDgog0TBqzjKn4Oxvf/tbuADVrLPOOitq1ZQFbXc9pFqsm/9VG0/34Fouos4we0rxu9vu
         bgFs4AZi/bDpNTnmoEGNHX1ZKjRYgBAiq8t1x3VFABwFqW/QritLXsvqEgwBjXsaS3O2hUUS
         aO5XEnAJmuxiALZrLdmZNu2YiHr5yvq0o2eohgGMVSpZCqYArN3cVprRsva4Cv6ZItSPDP4+
         yTnkj8sI3QY4l7r4vXDhorL68JUigAFBb3PnPl4A3KcI8IhYeO5Q6zU7k/R35JFHdgIDUMX8
         +fOfKkrwbpnKmxIzP8B1f04iZBC1dOnLxT++Hsrkuyw0UDKHHDX3FLmXjzWBYBHdOeecXfzk
         8M4tLK6jJAmc+1mtmvSSJUuCpvlVB2XwJgE7HEXdlIf1WoTPV+darWSj7rASBamz3s4A1BYj
         obgUbXePbgPMGhtFg7Ul8HilaPnkoKdcv7xx46Zi0W+EZbkG7X3uc58LsBQHaLwVkQQpn1yw
         YFFpY1qsfBQ4bdw4OEBRMfIuDQB4noGy1CuvvCJSpEWLFsWUnvOAcY5SuAdwrFQglctfBVaC
         p46OzeW5I8N606+610EJ9RV9535iIIiUAfqtb32r+sY3vhFp0UsvLY0c2eY0R64R8zmtPNkm
         Lbnu1/M1Enlt9mFHzOW+jwOuPnUb4KwSoafJkycG/d50002dflHe6LUJChFARF+AePDBR4sl
         DIm9Ra4Rldo3dOaZZxVhV9W9994XvnLwYEtZ26pTTjml+stf/hLAeQWDtISysBa+1TNyF78p
         P5UnLoBysE79BEC+zMz6qqeeeqoEVYeWe4/orH5hA/fIkQGhTb6ZoIHqO5E7i/bj+jvuuLOw
         0oLSRsMdcVGUU/9S0UXv2qI0aRQUhbLWLV77uceKpVLKOphdaT6Vpu7iumPV3QY46YdfQ08P
         P/xwTMERJsE6z3cZCEGhT69dsAvf2mXn7eqzWUzJD6ii2ltv/e8A0+CmTZterrkkghfAURT7
         dM3qOEwY+PnKV74SfwNHGyybsAkp6U+/UKy+nHnm6Z0L4bPSpWq1bt3a8rMhUqr99x/UWbDI
         Aoq2WLa0CQu1t78ZwJtf5oL0G5ie41qyYaH64bUPgHVeEcW1Inc5tWuwHOXIKhxWoQDplpId
         yJECk09OrHQF+6OA7jbAKVC/dY5gCZH2GYTB0HJpCY33Xg0lPZErgJcvfyX8rtSFldJuOwfy
         /Ri5laRPn30CXLTL2k0q5BJZPp1bwAR2C/KFwCBQAiSkHHwWOQRNVlsed9z04i4OiH67hrDW
         rVsffpeiZHqV9O2ZDuNwTd++jTf1TJ06uTDYpM65aPexYNcYD5fUWCP2QWm3o+TgR4bbIDNK
         tWXLO/FmAsDlJAcZOk9JPLee61OA3OXoe4rmXuPqznrtbgFMIB6O6jJYMqicvQEKgAU3+f4p
         9Oce/lZB32fronRu2rRpQYOiXYfO0vijj55cBP1+BE201neokCLpQy7NcR9/znJRcZYqXUMg
         uTvRs332XkrbWMwEUTrf2XfE3bCujPwT3FzpkX2QPmUxxYpL04bGx5XkDgvguw+4BA8M982b
         91hMO6pxjxgxqrDXbZGy2SwHVFaffTZezzFmixAoi75qL/cye46YAgv4fle18G4BDATACFxQ
         Ftqk9QRDu5xDzwSuQ4CgrRRAhymDDgGDFfOrlIEAgeM72sw6CYb1uo+1eUZjo9mGUBCUCxT3
         A5AwCNmRcYLPnkWpcseCFEiuqw7tsLeJdWYUm4v29B1QuWiPkCkvN5QRLUv9yU9+0jljlcIm
         B33BTj4DQDsUwViuv/76EtmfX5R7ebCd7a0UzzWCxrpiCSDdn0ZkLAzBnmeMlBZfX8GyI6re
         JcA0xOBoO/9BQ30GJFBY06xZpxaaHhj+bPz4sfFSFCDkbA9asZYKOIIwgiIkwsyd9sDKRe0G
         wqcCMX2Ra5UHCUPqQpD5pjrKxb/z2WhbxE4ZBXlZiCAQETh698MKWEy6GG0BJt9mm2khAVNE
         h/6rXGnbdSJu54GJGdLKKaRxASXTOsoEUBG5+rVsAYvlpjntuC9fPYHy8xWNaaVclpUmGeNk
         PWC3fbCGCcbLwFgWkAwk37HMig1+5swZRfB9i4Yp2g8oguVb+8V3zlMGfsh9/C+FQXG+xwAG
         x+JSMPJQ2zlzzTMtz9cQApogRdMUR7+0nSVM0bv7KJ6pvfSLWdzwLJ+xCBrUj1zWs99+g0q7
         I6Ot9IMUjbI65MLuEQtoI/vCooYOHR6W3r9/v4i+teteMuRiKLW/WbIg1VsHWGiyT6ZEYooE
         zpgpSAaPFEp8oi0W7veO0qs64Du14Mw/DcYK0jlzzisBwuaIgJ3LPbeEoSM6O3XqlHjo6683
         8k6dRq20lJXxm7Q3/Y7O564DwVlWvLSRC9WBnQUQjOFvOWi+HI2ma1dUL4810+N6z3QtK83C
         hX7nLkVuwLs9brnllnA3jYrY/mUu+JziCqYGC7heX3NxgTZzVomlGbdnaYfAcyUJi6bM+iTa
         zt0XzvteVE6B8s162so9yxRef/QzCzs+ux64mI4l5/M+ynqd2ynAqTmEPnv2rEJvC8OSc9sI
         rUepOiOvzd16tG/p0pc652yBJarW8UbANTCCj4wECdbRyG8buSIKZN0EQns9x3n38J0shnBz
         Kwoqz6g50znxAOtA9wSZ7kD7K1a8Ft9lcKZPDWVcX37eDqVUPVO8aWsbGZbrvLf08OX8uP7o
         57333htKn8onmOIqgOge7gwLGj/AKKRXTKDqtL7GGwzag7Zzz5VnomPjoMxYSt7vb21l8WRX
         ZdEdApycn5rNAlgJYRsIcAFHM9EPDW9Uizo6c1qdz9kawnCe73Av35i1ZMKcOnVaobdRhb4W
         lih9QmgzTc+SJAFgAHm3ayZNmhLrnQVy6Ts9C33mm3bk4BRJ3zMFI3g0Sjlc5w16nu/wN/A9
         0z2TJh1VFErK8n4JKueWMS4L2teW8YqCWRWXZazA1z6GysP3FD5dEDBcT1H1VUyQb5zv6NgS
         QFJm37nOuBV7yMxz/RZ/iAO6W6PeqQWzDgPxm9bwKXweQaY1AiFTEoLJ+q6B8bM0VocBi1ak
         RyiLAmVkrKOnnHJyvF3dPbSdZbjXc+qlSKCpW48cOSJ2LBAAVmCpAOK3LXNlJXwsMBu+sjFF
         KIZg0a7hCzPKdo41a8O7sqSD/J379WHOnHNCmeTe/DF6dK+Azn0ZCbNeyuwAKgCdR60OwLJM
         7Yrov/e974VlXnfd9cUlvRrG40c/FHeMAZhY4Ic//GHI0eICysH4Mk3arSCLgNHP1772tQDF
         Q9Pn+ExwOkq4wKVhvsvCBeHTeAMAYi5XpSwZKeoksEeNGhl9POaYKfEaX8qUs08EieIVJdyH
         +hYvfrEowfJOpXCviN2sUJYcCTNfEn7YYWOjdDpt2tFBu8amH7keOqchKYtxsHxLe4wHm3A/
         3/zmN8NqzVIBgeXnRjVKYG+xGoEDuwmiLLDPVFE7jqyKsXhZCYsfO/bw0p/G24DS91NEFT1K
         b1w/+MEPQoZATRnvbHKjDvhHpklZK80VhG7UOECzI/5m2ejJQPno3IMLEFZLGNpAO4TnIDTC
         pADDhg0t2r6kCGh8GZDI2BxsYyM262IxK1e+WRRhdCjDPffcW565Pl5Iqg1Wwy+icJpPEO7F
         BvyWSQKCFlFnBE8hkkKT7gDjumQi42eBGQsYM3ClWdZlGbfAS5usWPvG729G4TtGkM9RS5fq
         Oce6Gy86nRBjxJaZmmXpFsgU1fNTecgur/soy81zOwWYdktpMvJFC6hTZ2muwVt9qPhgoAAE
         nlSAYHWCMFCd63NhOg0kAD8GgrKU9datW1MGcmSJetWUWXafUBhW2CiebCyU1RgwugRGVsAo
         gBKoQ9Tv+UBigXx/Y1Lg/VCwF19cFMySNMt69dUzMEoWGwg1MwXCJQ+MhsWw1gMPPBAA5dIf
         36mYJbulG8uUjaWqoTtPTkCVSnpVoz5yK75LZdM/zxeviPjT2HYVVHUFfacA6zhwDMQEQWph
         Rq4oyYvFPJAADBbt6IggJV9O5jPFoAAEnTlt1lxZhYFdeOEFkdKwgq1b3+ncgS+STOpk9WvX
         rgv2cHhWRtgAYR3YQp/Rl3OeiS5RoxxVns59UEpj0UaWYilkVt4A715AWTKrfX1nvayND0eh
         lNc5CqC9TOv0D+gsWvrGd3ouH8+nYgrtTp9+XNlndUs8R83eC97IFPPpm6jdOuyuixS6Y72u
         +cggS8dFrzopjEdr+R4MABMCnyQPzAlzwOkMSyBwnSUos0CAcT61Ef2loOTBfBZNtmaZ0F1P
         ez0zS3YsVHsEmf4RTTpY7RFHTIj/mrJmTePtd5n3ei72uOaaa8IK5b+emTGEEiB3QZH1GXCe
         y08amypUuhQ5OmXLMiplyX3LnkMuAHffnDnnxm5Gkwy/+tWvIjfOMqoxUOZXXxVPvB/rxtyf
         RRjjNKbcVtNdULvlgw0cFaIW+W/uAyLoug9FJegbMPnG1xQ2wRMU6nPk220IJOnNZ2uMM+9N
         SkZlOeWXryOUo4rGCaOxSGBj+F5Mk0d7+xulH6s69w4DiyBz4zfXgKL9RvHAYN2pjOiS39R3
         YBsvYLDCF7/4xVAa/pey6IcfSuRaBsASsQhrveiii4slTilKPK9Mi94Vz3WebCkXK6WwFDVr
         334bD3om/5xe3B1wd2jBGZl5EGHSwnwLTb5Jva1tTAh/8eKXSiePDS2TWmR9Gjg0PCs0HoR+
         UT0ap5m5NhlQOTme/sXfBCftOPjgg0JgQ4YMjXQHmxAkRSDELHUSmnaXLVsa4LpG2/qgL/qe
         uxBdB/CcO/YstKvNzAZSiaRFAB016sDystIGC1FkbVIOzyAjvymN/gAHnSsOqe49+eQLBeTn
         I4bQj5wowU7y2nzlcc4cUTiMYEz5n2R66nt3GmSlTzIIeZeH0OoMRvw9Y8bMziWqtK2xjGdZ
         Z7pEgP5TSRbS+S3aK92htXxyrqGqz6L4nOuWuQA+SrsLFy4usyhzIsXxgrPC3p2pAgtg4fqt
         HxghixuE7K07WCjrzTkTxTIoCOFSvj/+8Y/BMHw+5XYvK5OHmj1TiBkwYN+Sr74cz6J0QNBn
         isiK7ZnS/4xXBKinnXZqiS9MU75d4osFna+PUI2jFJ6TuyIALAPQD+yUhZndtd4PWTAtyeUx
         rACYOiL/Awp/SUNnzToxBmK3gHTGQHWIsHSSpdC81157PfqG/uzMU6gQ7QLa37kowD20nnX4
         PXPmSWXT9eXhCzdt2lxoqq2AtzrY4oILzg8wgOk5+purJ3P6kRWyknHjxhdFOz8A0X+WIad0
         nhCNz3hy0QDFpMyu99nGb6/0dy2lcZ2ADYA5P8sKvYZYO4In1TFuS9+M55FHHo00bfbsk4qS
         r4i+Yj/Zh89+yJplp+vCPvrPeHKyf3dB/o8gCz1nIo1CaRCqotUGkrMp6YfWrFkdkwI6YlFa
         ltPcRwgLFjxbIsjjw1JUkX70ox/FIPznMYUDg5MTZiTqH2wIdMaNOyyslNWzZH2RWqhxy2s9
         01qu7dsb79ugCIRG6fgtvlVgwz9rx6oQ/RHNChq5E8WUnIHKSQ5KmspBDixfFAsoiwWAmitF
         gUIR9A0gfgSb2CTnygVh8+Y9UQAfGyVY11IwPh47qKhpn0K4JydVLJBob38rvu9OMeOjwP9Q
         FK1TOcsjD9ZhFEbwuSwHrdBA9PXMM88Xy7Wnp7F/B1gEvXHjhtiiafuIgwXkxi3TeKgThYte
         c1203JcwvcSMhUpDuAmDNMUmxUDxFrUPHz4yih1btnR01sBdL+CjkKgOHXd0rAmFykK/lE6x
         3wRBbi8FHLoEdJYvKTM/Kw/lr1m7MaD2zZs7wrIov2tyQkBdwEoRDJOBF1fn3+RNmPBfwV6U
         1tiNU0qoP8ZP4RiGbMN212HDhgQL7K7v3aUPTpCzJpvlSBpuUARoELQy35BO63P7yLjD26ph
         I8aU5zRei+8gFFoOCHSfb6eTNhAWING8gQEp9/865zmCNJSMvqyNAiYLTorNoIqSCpp8j3ny
         LbVeroI1Gv936avRFsvPmnVOHgABwOjYAjv5Ptawxvrqq6+N71etao8+snKMMHduY620qhoG
         8ZxGGtUvXJE6OWAZBcNhJNwGcLO4QpHIVSBq/ZjvuQoyJbvdseb/sGBAEAowM7HOJB5ANFwn
         cm1vpkP5IrLsAGrpVwbnNQl1DfTZgPhg1wi0ctWC5/jJKDSXorgnV30ANOeYfZ/TZnltAgU4
         FJhTdvrpnHo0q0aL/s6Zsdzz5DruhwKuWrU61n+fcMKMWM4r2LvrrrsjnrBDEYDKpitXtheF
         a8QHWSHjt70kJleLGLNyLLlSToqGhcxdK1k2ZG1BwcygaoxAEfI/pzIqSrM7/vhDPtgA65pS
         B8j3OYdZ/74OeFJDGO2/LLfuI7IUl2ubUaIjn5m/u1IT5XLOT27VzGlNz8/dENrK2nm9LZ8x
         Ap+e9WGCz3TE83JxGwUxuzV79slhkYBCveg2J9/9VrxAtcceO7UwxfhiqUsiBgDUkiXLiqt5
         IywSGwhWKQUX4xp1czECa8aAGSAK1HLpsb7pKytmCB8b4Lqgd+a4d+QTeuonuirHv5Wisd93
         R0dX4OtKmMDnvck+XdlDu/kah/ozuipZYwlt4z1bqdRYB91rM3+04TOlxyIsv1GgGRbbUfVj
         +/ZtBWx7nx4oLuWQYBHAAfLJJ+dHlqCaRc+3bu2I2AbtZ1aRlbbs485w2dn3u1x019MGe3p9
         T5WjO4q3qzYz78y2uv6dlJ8ApuLXv+/aD8/MaNpnlgdspUlz1xYpSKewCKawlBZojQV73tz3
         bsQKAwcOCMVyTnzAerkylJ2M1RMZ/58D3JPOflLX7koBdvSc7tzTlTFYYdKw5UjWj2eMkys1
         /71Qwr/Rbfzr23RjAKYQWcbtTh+69v3/JcCflKLsqh0Wl9tNEjig15nh325xx++lRv85AbKr
         5+3ofAvg3ZFaD+7panU7SnU+yjJ3x2rr3WsB3AOwmvHSFsDNiFoP+twCuAfCasZLWwA3I2o9
         6HML4B4IqxkvbQHcjKj1oM8tgHsgrGa8tAVwM6LWgz63AO6BsJrx0hbAzYhaD/rcArgHwmrG
         S1sANyNqPehzC+AeCKsZL+134403/utfJzdj91t93pUE/gf7fhLIDlERgAAAAABJRU5ErkJg
         gg==
         
         
         
         4
            
          The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Classes 29, 30 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International
         Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.
         
         
         
         5
            
          On 6 January 1998, Vedial filed a notice of opposition under Article 42 of Regulation No 40/94 against the mark applied for
         in respect of some of the products covered by the mark, namely, ‘milk and milk products’ in Class 29 and ‘vinegar, sauces’
         in Class 30.
         
         
         
         6
            
          The earlier mark is the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 for ‘butters, edible fats, cheeses and all dairy products’ in Class
         29. It is composed of two words connected by a hyphen and including the number 41.
         
         
         
         7
            
          Upon rejection of its opposition by a decision of 1 December 1999 by the Opposition Division, Vedial filed an appeal with
         OHIM against the decision of the Opposition Division pursuant to Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94. In support of its appeal,
         the applicant annexed to its statement of grounds several documents intended to establish the reputation of its mark in France.
         
         
         
         8
            
          That appeal was dismissed by the contested decision. The First Board of Appeal of OHIM essentially considered that, even though
         there was a high degree of similarity between the goods in question and even though, for the purposes of the application of
         that provision, it was possible to take account of the reputation of the earlier mark demonstrated to it by Vedial, there
         was no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public concerned since the conflicting marks did not display strong similarities. 
         
         Procedure before the Court of First Instance and judgment under appeal
         
         9
            
          By an application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 May 2001, Vedial brought an action for the
         annulment of the contested decision on the sole ground of infringement of the concept of likelihood of confusion for the purposes
         of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
         
         
         
         10
            
          Before the Court of First Instance, OHIM acknowledged that if it were legitimate to regard the earlier mark as reputed, it
         would be appropriate to conclude that there was a likelihood of confusion with the mark applied for. None the less, since
         it was not possible, in OHIM’s view, to accept the reputation of the earlier mark owing to the appellant’s failure to provide
         evidence of such reputation within the period granted for that purpose by the Opposition Division, it was appropriate to examine
         the case without the adjunction of that factual element.
         
         
         
         11
            
          In that regard OHIM considered that, if the Court of First Instance were to find that the dominant component of the earlier
         mark is the Christian name ‘HUBERT’, it would be difficult to deny the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the
         marks in question. Conversely, if the Court of First Instance were to hold that the earlier mark is not particularly distinctive
         and forms a whole in which no component is dominant, the differences between the marks should be sufficient to demonstrate
         that there is no likelihood of confusion. OHIM leaves it to the discretion of the Court of First Instance to resolve that
         point of law brought before it.
         
         
         
         12
            
          France Distribution, which was a lawfully constituted party to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board
         of Appeal, did not intervene in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
         
         
         
         13
            
          The Court of First Instance first recalled, at paragraphs 35 to 39 of the judgment under appeal, the Court’s case-law concerning
         likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark.
         
         
         
         14
            
          The Court of First Instance then went on, at paragraphs 40 to 59 of the judgment under appeal, to compare on the one hand
         the goods concerned and on the other the conflicting signs. Thus it found that the ‘dairy products’ and ‘edible fats’ in respect
         of which the earlier mark had been registered were identical, respectively, with ‘milk and milk products’ and similar to ‘vinegar,
         sauces’ covered by the trade mark application in question. On the other hand, it considered that the earlier mark and the
         mark applied for ‘are not similar visually’, that they are ‘dissimilar from an aural point of view’ and that there ‘is no
         conceptual similarity between the conflicting marks’.
         
         
         
         15
            
          Finally, at paragraphs 60 to 66 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance adjudged there to be no risk of
         confusion between the earlier mark and the mark applied for. It held in particular at paragraph 63 that ‘even though there
         is identity and similarity between the goods covered by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual differences
         between the signs constitute sufficient grounds for holding that there is no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the targeted
         public’. At paragraphs 65 and 66, it went on to state that, ‘in this case, the conflicting signs cannot in any way be regarded
         as identical or similar from the visual, aural or conceptual points of view’ and that, consequently, ‘one of the essential
         conditions for applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 has not been satisfied’.
         
         
         
         16
            
          Accordingly, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the contested decision.
         
         The appeal
         
         17
            
          In its appeal, in support of which it raises three pleas, Vedial claims that the Court should:
         
         
         
          
         –
            set aside the judgment under appeal;
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            give final judgment on the dispute by granting the forms of order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the
               case to the Court of First Instance;
            
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            order OHIM to pay the costs.
         
         
         
         
         
         18
            
          OHIM contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order Vedial to pay the costs.
         
         First plea Parties’ arguments
         
         
         19
            
          In its first plea Vedial submits that in the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance infringed the general principle
         of Community law under which the parties delimit the subject-matter of a case, which was upheld by the Court in its judgment
         in Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel and Van Veen [1995] ECR I-4705).
         
         
         
         20
            
          It states that, under that principle it is for the parties alone to determine the scope of the dispute. It precludes the court
         from raising an issue not referred to in the parties’ submissions. Thus, where on a given point there is no dispute between
         the parties or where they expressly acknowledge the existence of a legal, relevant and specific fact, the court cannot act
         of its own motion except if the agreement between the parties on the specific point is contrary to public policy.
         
         
         
         21
            
          In the present case, during the procedure before the Court of First Instance, Vedial and OHIM were agreed as to a similarity,
         if only a phonetic one, between the earlier mark and the mark applied for, and as to a risk of confusion if it were not possible
         to criticise the Board of Appeal for taking the view that the earlier mark was very distinctive, if only owing to the reputation
         gained by it in France. According to Vedial, that delimitation of the dispute was not contrary to public policy.
         
         
         
         22
            
          Accordingly, the Court of First Instance, it is claimed, infringed the principle under which the parties delimit the subject-matter
         of a case by considering, contrary to the agreement between the parties on that point, that the conflicting marks displayed
         no similarities.
         
         
         
         23
            
          OHIM contends that the first plea is unfounded. The abovementioned principle applies in civil law but not to the predominantly
         administrative law disputes concerning the Community trade mark. Moreover, OHIM has no locus standi of its own, since it was not a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. When an action comes before the Court
         of First Instance it must determine whether OHIM, that is to say the Board of Appeal, correctly applied Regulation No 40/94
         and, if it concludes that OHIM infringed that regulation, it must set the decision aside. 
         
         
         
         24
            
          OHIM points out that in its action before the Court of First Instance Vedial maintained that the contested decision infringed
         the concept of likelihood of confusion and expressly requested the Court of First Instance to examine the conflicting marks
         and to determine that there was a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was right to examine that
         concept and to apply Regulation No 40/94. It cannot therefore be said to have infringed the principle under which the parties
         delimit the subject-matter of a case.
         
         
         
         25
            
          Moreover, OHIM contends that in the present case there was no agreement between Vedial and itself. In its view, apart from
         the fact that the view of OHIM is expressed in the view taken by the Board of Appeal, as was adjudged by the Court of First
         Instance in the judgment under appeal, France Distribution, which could have acted as an intervener before the Court of First
         Instance, in no way assented to Vedial’s interpretation of the likelihood of confusion. However, in disputes relating to industrial
         and commercial property the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance confer on the intervener a position which is
         almost identical to that of the other parties.
          Findings of the Court
         
         
         
         26
            
          Even on the supposition that the principle under which the parties delimit the subject-matter of a case applies in proceedings
         such as those at first instance concerning an action against a decision of an appeal board of OHIM on an opposition to registration
         of a mark based on the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, OHIM does not in any event have the power to alter before
         the Court of First Instance the terms of the dispute, as delimited in the respective claims and allegations of the applicant
         for registration and of the opposing party.
         
         
         
         27
            
          In fact, although under Article 133(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, OHIM is the defendant in
         proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the proceedings before that Court are intended to resolve a dispute between
         the claimant for registration and the holder of an earlier mark, as is borne out by the following provisions in Regulation
         No 40/94 and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
         
         
         
         28
            
          First, under Article 63(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94, that action seeks to examine the lawfulness of the decision of
         the Board of Appeal which decided the dispute concerning registration of the mark applied for and to obtain, in an appropriate
         case, the annulment or alteration of that decision.
         
         
         
         29
            
          Yet before both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, the dispute is between the applicant for registration and
         the party opposing it, without OHIM being a party to the dispute.
         
         
         
         30
            
          It is important to note, in particular, that under Article 42(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, only owners of earlier marks may
         oppose registration of a mark on the relative ground of refusal provided for in Article 8(1)(b) thereof. Thus, OHIM does not
         have the power to oppose registration of a mark on such a ground.
         
         
         
         31
            
          Nor, secondly, is the action before the Court of First Instance against the decision of a Board of Appeal on an opposition
         open to OHIM. In fact, under Article 63(4) of Regulation No 40/94 such an action ‘shall be open to any party to proceedings
         before the Board of Appeal adversely affected by its decision’.
         
         
         
         32
            
          Thirdly, the capacity of defendant conferred on OHIM is limited in its effects. Conversely, the parties to the proceedings
         before the Board of Appeal, other than the applicant, entitled, under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court
         of First Instance, to participate in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance as interveners, are accorded in that
         connection extensive rights such as to assimilate them to actual defendants.
         
         
         
         33
            
          Thus, Article 134(2) of the Rules of Procedure states that: ‘The interveners referred to in paragraph 1 shall have the same
         procedural rights as the main parties.’
         
         
         
         34
            
          Moreover, contrary to the ordinary rule in regard to intervention set out in Article 116(4)(a) of the Rules of Procedure,
         Article 134(3) thereof provides that ‘[a]n intervener … may, in his response …, seek an order annulling or altering the decision
         of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application’. By dint of a contrario reasoning under the latter provision OHIM is not entitled, for its part, to formulate such forms of order.
         
         
         
         35
            
          Finally it is clear from Article 134(4) thereof that, in derogation from Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, even if OHIM
         does not respond to the application in the manner and within the period prescribed, the default procedure is not to apply
         where a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal other than the applicant intervenes before the Court of First
         Instance.
         
         
         
         36
            
          Therefore OHIM cannot be granted power, by partially concurring with the analysis put forward by the applicant, or acquiescing
         in its appeal, to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First Instance. Any other finding would defeat the legitimate
         expectation of the party which was successful before the Board of Appeal, in so far as the purpose of proceedings before the
         Court of First Instance is, pursuant to Article 63(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to review the legality of the decision of the
         Board of Appeal.
         
         
         
         37
            
          In this case the Court of First Instance was in no way bound by the agreement between Vedial and OHIM as to the similarity
         or even the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks. The Court was therefore correct to consider, in the judgment
         under appeal, whether the contested decision infringed the concept of likelihood of confusion, as Vedial alleged in its application,
         and to apply Regulation No 40/94.
         
         
         
         38
            
          The first ground of appeal must therefore be dismissed.
         
         Second ground of appeal Arguments of the parties
         
         
         39
            
          In its second ground of appeal Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance infringed the rights of the defence by failing
         to act in accordance with its legitimate expectation as to the parameters of the dispute agreed by the parties. Having regard
         to the position adopted by OHIM in its response submitted to the Court of First Instance, it withdrew its request to be permitted
         to submit a response and limited its arguments to the parameters defined by OHIM’s statement of its position.
         
         
         
         40
            
          According to Vedial, even if the Court of First Instance was not bound by the principle under which the parties delimit the
         scope of the case, it should have ordered that the matter be reopened and notified the parties that it did not concur with
         their view as to the aural similarity of the conflicting marks.
         
         
         
         41
            
          OHIM considers that the second ground of appeal presupposes that the Court of First Instance infringed the abovementioned
         principle, which in its view it did not. It adds that, both in its application and at the hearing, Vedial set out its views
         at length, as well as explaining its interpretation of the regulatory provisions and relevant case‑law.
          Findings of the Court
         
         
         
         42
            
          As regards the second ground of appeal, even on the assumption that Vedial and OHIM were agreed that there was some similarity
         between the conflicting marks or even that there was a likelihood of confusion, it must be borne in mind first of all that,
         as analysis of the first ground of appeal makes clear, the Court of First Instance was in no way bound by that view, but had
         a duty to determine whether, by finding that there was no similarity between the two marks, the Board of Appeal had infringed
         Regulation No 40/94 in the contested decision. Secondly, the Court of First Instance did not base its decision on facts or
         arguments extraneous to the issue.
         
         
         
         43
            
          Accordingly, the Court of First Instance in no way failed to act in accordance with the legitimate expectations of Vedial,
         nor was it bound to reopen the matter in order to notify it that it did not agree that there was aural similarity between
         the earlier mark and the mark applied for.
         
         
         
         44
            
          The second ground of appeal must therefore be dismissed.
         
         Third ground of appeal Arguments of the parties
         
         
         45
            
          In its third ground of appeal, which was submitted in the alternative, Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance infringed
         the concept of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
         
         
         
         46
            
          By the first limb of this plea, Vedial claims that the Court of First Instance erred in finding, at paragraph 62 of the judgment
         under appeal, that there was no likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the mark applied for without establishing,
         as it should have done, whether there was a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question originate
         from undertakings which are linked economically only.
         
         
         
         47
            
          By the second limb of the same plea, Vedial alleges that the Court of First Instance was wrong to find, at paragraph 63 of
         the judgment under appeal, that the visual, aural and conceptual differences between the earlier mark and the mark applied
         for constituted sufficient grounds to discount any likelihood of confusion. According to Vedial, the question is not whether
         there are differences between the conflicting marks, but whether those marks are identical or similar and whether, taken together
         with the identity or similarity of the goods or services concerned, the extent of those similarities is such that there is
         a likelihood of confusion.
         
         
         
         48
            
          By the third limb of this plea, Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance did not apply the rule of interdependence in
         a clear manner. It erred in failing to state that the alleged slight degree of similarity between the earlier mark and the
         mark applied for was counteracted by the high degree of similarity between the goods concerned and by the strong distinctiveness
         of the earlier mark.
         
         
         
         49
            
          By the final limb of the third plea Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance was wrong, at paragraph 62 of the contested
         decision, to restrict the relevant persons to the ‘target public’, which is to say purely to consumers likely to purchase
         the marked goods. In Vedial’s submission, the relevant public for the purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion is
         composed of all persons likely to come across the mark.
         
         
         
         50
            
          OHIM argues that the third ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded in regard to all limbs.
          Findings of the Court
         
         
         
         51
            
          For the purposes of applying Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the
         mark applied for and the earlier mark are identical or similar, and that the goods or services covered in the application
         for registration are identical or similar to those in respect of which the earlier mark is registered. Those conditions are
         cumulative (see to that effect, on the identical provisions of Article 4(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
         December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 22).
         
         
         
         52
            
          Contrary to Vedial’s claim, the Court of First Instance did not rely on the visual, aural and conceptual differences between
         the earlier mark and the mark applied for in deciding that there was no likelihood of confusion. 
         
         
         
         53
            
          After making a comparative study, at paragraphs 48 to 59 of the judgment under appeal, of the two marks in the visual, aural
         and conceptual senses, the Court of First Instance concluded, as stated at paragraph 65 of the judgment, that the marks could
         in no way be regarded as identical or similar for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
         
         
         
         54
            
          Having found that there was no similarity between the earlier mark and the mark applied for, the Court of First Instance correctly
         concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion, whatever the reputation of the earlier mark and regardless of the degree
         of identity or similarity of the goods or services concerned. 
         
         
         
         55
            
          The third ground of appeal is therefore unfounded in regard to each of its limbs and must be dismissed.
         
         
         
         56
            
          Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.
         
         
         Costs
         57
            
          Under Article 62(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 of those
         rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party’s pleadings.
         Since OHIM sought such an order and Vedial has failed in its appeal it must be ordered to pay the costs.
         
         
         
         
         
         
            
            
         
         
          On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:
         
            
            
             
               1.
                  Dismisses the appeal;
               
            
            
            
             
               2.
                  Orders Vedial SA to pay the costs.
               
            
             Signatures.
      
      
          1 –
            
            Language of the case: French.