CELEX: 62003TJ0033
Language: en
Date: 2005-03-09
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005. # Osotspa Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national and Community figurative SHARK marks - Application for Community word mark Hai - Absolute ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. # Case T-33/03.

Case T-33/03
      Osotspa Co. Ltd
      v
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      (Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier national and Community figurative SHARK marks – Application for Community word mark Hai – Absolute ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
      Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 9 March 2005 
      Summary of the Judgment
      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 sign Hai and figurative SHARK marks
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))
      There is no likelihood of confusion, as regards the average consumer in the European Union and in Austria in particular, between
         the word mark Hai, for which registration as a Community trade mark was sought inter alia for goods in Classes 5, 32 and 33
         within the meaning of the Nice Agreement, and the figurative SHARK marks with special graphics the letters of which have stylised
         characters so that the whole of the sign calls to mind the form of a shark, which were previously registered in Austria and
         as a Community trade mark for identical or similar goods, namely ‘non-alcoholic drinks; syrups and other preparations for
         making beverages’ in Class 32 of that agreement, since, as it has been stated that the earlier marks have a distinctive character
         per se, the significant visual and aural differences between the marks in question are such as to cancel out, to a large extent,
         their conceptual similarity which depends on prior translation, so that the degree of similarity between those marks is not
         sufficiently great for the Court to make a finding that the public might believe that the goods in question come from the
         same undertaking or, as the case may be, from undertakings which are economically linked.
      
      (see paras 38, 46, 60, 62, 64-65)

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
            
            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)9 March 2005(1)
         
         
               (Community trade mark  –  Opposition proceedings  –  Earlier national and Community figurative SHARK marks  –  Application for Community word mark Hai  –  Absolute ground for refusal  –  Likelihood of confusion  –  Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
               
             In Case T-33/03,
            
            
            Osotspa Co. Ltd, established in Bangkok (Thailand), represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
            
            
            applicant,
            
            v
            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. von Mühlendahl, T. Eichenberg and G. Schneider, acting as Agents,
            
            defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, beingDistribution & Marketing GmbH,  established in Salzburg (Austria), represented initially by C. Hauer and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann,
            lawyers,
            
             ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of  OHIM of 27 November 2002 (Case R 296/2002-3) concerning
            opposition proceedings between Osotspa Co. Ltd and Distribution & Marketing GmbH,
            
            
            THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),
            
            
             composed of H. Legal, President,  V. Tiili and V. Vadapalas, Judges,
            
             Registrar: D. Christensen, Administrator,
             having regard to the application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 4 February 2003,having regard to the response lodged at the Registry of the Court on  28 May 2003,having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Registry of the Court on 27 May 2003,further to the hearing on 29 September 2004,
            
            
         gives the following
         
         
         Judgment
            
               Background 
            
         
         1
            
          On 10 September 1997 Distribution & Marketing GmbH (‘the intervener’) filed an application for a Community trade mark under
         Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as amended, at the
         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
         
         
         
         2
            
          The mark for which registration was sought is the word sign Hai.
         
         
         
         3
            
          The goods and services for which registration of the mark was sought fall within Classes 5, 12, 14, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35,
         41 and 42 within the meaning 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 amended and modified.
         
         
         
         4
            
          That application was published in Community Trade Marks Bulletin  No 58/98 of 3 August 1998.
         
         
         
         5
            
          On 30 October 1998 Osotspa Co. Ltd (‘the applicant’) gave notice of opposition under Article 42 of Regulation No 40/94 against
         the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods and services within Classes 5, 32, 33, 35 and 42 with the
         following description:
         
         
         
          
         –
            Class 5: ‘Strengthening and refreshing health care products, namely vitamin preparations, mineral preparations, tonics’;
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            Class 32: ‘Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other
               preparations for making beverages’;
            
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            Class 33: ‘Alcoholic beverages (except beers)’;
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            Class 35: ‘Organisation of trade fairs and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes relating exclusively or non-exclusively
               to the following goods: strengthening and refreshing health care products, namely vitamin preparations, mineral preparations,
               tonics; beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other
               preparations for making beverages, alcoholic beverages; distribution for advertising purposes of strengthening and refreshing
               health care products, namely vitamin preparations, mineral preparations, tonics, beers, mineral and aerated waters and other
               non-alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks and fruit juices, syrups and other preparations for making beverages and alcoholic beverages’;
            
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            Class 42: ‘Accommodation and catering for guests’.
         
         
         
         
         
         6
            
          The ground relied on in support of the opposition was that referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The opposition
         was based on the existence, first, of national mark AM 537/96, registered in Austria on 10 May 1996, and, secondly, of Community
         trade mark No 168 427, registered on 12 May 1998, both of which designate ‘non-alcoholic drinks; syrups and other preparations
         for making beverages’ included in Class 32 of the Nice Agreement, cited above. Those two earlier figurative marks (‘the earlier
         marks’) are represented as follows:
          iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAMkAAABMCAYAAADHu5NuAAAAAXNSR0IArs4c6QAAAAlwSFlz
         AAAOxAAADsQBlSsOGwAAABl0RVh0U29mdHdhcmUATWljcm9zb2Z0IE9mZmljZX/tNXEAABve
         SURBVHhe7V13XFRX0x4V7L1hR7H3iooVuyI2rLGLvcVu7L1EDSIxiTWKsddXxV5iL4nlQ8CG
         AgKiSFGxY/32GXJxwb1l2V12WXf43T90T51z554zM8/Msfr8+fMXslCK5oD7Mnc66HWQ/O/7
         08KFC6lH9x4pej6mMvi5c+emwlisTGVAlnFoz4EdO3fQqpWr6NSpU1w5R44cVKxYMe0bstSQ
         5IBFSFLgCxIYFEgL5i+grVu30tu3b+Nn0N+1P9VxqJMCZ2TaQ7YIiWmvT4LRffz4kZb/vpw8
         13mSr69vgt/y5MlDvXr3SkGzSTlDtQhJClmr169e0+DBg2nL1i0aR1y0aFEqUaJECplNyhqm
         RUhSwHodPXaU5s+fT+fPndc42lSpUpGrqytlyJAhBcwm5Q3RIiQmvmYr/lhBE3+aSK9fvxYd
         aZ26dXiXsZBhOGAREsPwVedWHz16RLPmzKL1a9fTp8+fRNtLnSY1TZk8Ref+LA2Ic8AiJCb4
         dkRERlCfvn3o5ImTsqOzK2ZHdepYLFqyjNKhgEVIdGCeIao+fvyYrVR/n/xbUfOt27SmrFmy
         KiprjoXu+t+lm343KU2qNEQq198XlW88jVUaql2nNuXJnUcvU7YIiV7YqJ9G7t+/T4MGD6LT
         p04rajB3ntzUr08/SpWaHcPfBT0Me0iXL16mDRs30MuXL+nBgwf0KOyRSj5UPAAbVPiRL6q/
         UqVLUZHCRej9+/f0+ctn6t2rNzVv3pwKFCigNZ8sQqI1ywxTIfhBMHXs2PEb/4dUbw0aNqBK
         lSoZZkAm1qqvny95rvekQ4cP0d07d2VHd+vmLYqMjKSsmbPSp0+fSAUxoTRp0lCvXtr7kixC
         Istuwxd49eoVjfhxhFYCglG5tHcx/OCM3MPHTx9pwvgJBAjO40ePZUdTvnx5FgR8cDJmykhp
         rdPSly9fSIVRpEyZMsnW11TAIiRJYpv+KkU/jaYBAwbQwQMHtWq0ZKmS1LJVS63qpLTC4eHh
         NHbcWNq2dZvs0HGMmjBhAvXr14+yZtWvjmYREln2G67Ay1cvacrUKbRv7z6tO2nRvAXlzJFT
         63oppcK+/fto0uRJdPe2/NEKR84//vjDYFY+i5AY8a2ZNXsWrVm1RusRpE+fnjp16qR1vZRS
         4dixYzSg/wCKjo6WHTLM39u2baNChQrJlk1qAYuQJJVzOtbbv28/rVmpvYCg26K2RcnOzk7H
         EZhm9StXr9DQYUMVCUjValVp06ZNBhUQcMkiJEZ4V44fP069+/SmV69fJan3xo0bG/zFSNLA
         dKwEHWTw0MEUFBgk21L5CuVp08ZNBGCnoSnFCwls5VmyZNHIp5DQEHYuZcyQkT58/MBlkmIn
         1+ciAG4ybNgwevHiRZKbxRfU3Cg2NpYWLlpI3te8ZacGQOecuXOobNmysmX1UcAkhOTe/Xv0
         MOQhWVlZsbkuXbp09Cj8EXtSpQim08uXL1P9hvWpYKGClNYqztwHPNODwAfk+Zcnff70mXJl
         z0VvY+OCk5ycndh0Wr9+/fimg4OD6cyZMxT7IZZSp0od//9o5/bt2xQaEkqdO3cm59bOlDZt
         2iTzHWNZ6raUAgICktwGHId169VNcn1TrXj4yGFa7rFc0fAaODagls2Tz7KXLEISFRVFeKGx
         wBCIc2fO8ctobWVNUU+jaO++vRQVEUWpU6dmbymEBV9aOIGU0NmzZyWLhT0Mi//dw92Dza1w
         SOGL5HfTjwYPGUyXLlySbAPxHBASMbp67Sr53/WnypUrcxHsGNi1SpYsGS9YG/7aQEvdlyqZ
         kmiZLl26EPBa5kR4PxBpqYTSpktLy9yXJWtYgN6E5O27t+R93ZtfPHhHBcsEjkOHDx+msEdh
         LCRRkVH8dTcWpUubjvr06cPjBE36aZKsgDRs2JB+Xviz6C5y4vgJGjp8KAXcT7hDIAgKpsyy
         ZcpSWFgY/bzoZ52n3dGlo067mc4DMEAD69evp6tXrypquYZ9DapQoYKisvoqpLWQIKb6ecxz
         inkeQzhHrlm7hp5EPCF8DW783w3G0Dx7/kxf49N7O1WqVaGJEyZyu4jyE5IoiHUEAdm5cyfl
         zp1bY5G9e/eSaz9X5ok6AQLR2qk1W6JAGzdtpHv+93SaD46hmTNl1qkNU6t8/sJ5xR8P8HTw
         oMGUJrUKzJiMJCskAIed+vsUBQUH0YXzF+hx2GO6H3ifAgMCk3GY+ukK6NARI0eQtbU1RUZE
         kru7e4JECol7KV6sOK1csVJUQPbv3089evagt2++JmMQ2oCDa978eXwsuHjpIi1ZvETnSRQu
         UpiqVa+mczum0gCO1BMnTqRnT5V9VO1r2VPnTp2TffjfCElMTAw9ffqUcI5f5rGMop9F05V/
         rtCbN2+SfXD67rB5s+bUrUs3bnbipIl07eo10S5wHBs3cRyVLlNaY5lbt2/RqFGjNAoIhBDR
         hMAKffr4iXNhPXsm/iKgr4wZM0pGH2IQ2XNkp7x58+qbLUZrD6DOwPvKPrbgUa8evQiO1OSm
         eCE5efIkK9BX/r1CPj4+9O7du+Qei0H7s7Gx4RcXWzb8FDhCSVHXbl0JKXo0ESxoc+bMIVjF
         NFH1atWpZYs468ux48fo6JGjkn1Vr16d2rRrQ7NmzGLrnBjlt8kf/xNg9Yh9z5kzJ9dxbOho
         dPO2tgu4bPkyQoCZEkqf0XgoAytsecDIbPDcIHn0UDIRuTKwWgGA1rxFc4Yu+9zwia9SoGAB
         Rm3iy8txASrdvmLFijR6zOh4JVuuffwOq9Ivbr/Q86fPySa/DeXLl48yZ8xMU6dOpdKlSxOC
         msaMGUNvXovvjAAP/urxKx/LNBF2ERgjNBHwVB4eHpQtWzY+0rm5uRFSAYkRbP0bN26kEydO
         SAoI6tvkteFmnj9/zmfzU6fjktKBSpUqxUICgYGQ5s+XnwoULkBwPOIrnDePae1AOJkcOXxE
         yZJymZYtW3LyPWOQFSxROHcnB02bNo1mzJjBXVWqWIkOHTzEZl+8jM1bNifbIrYJXhQIVVKo
         a5euDI3GriFYsYR27ty5Q/fv3RdtFvmrFi1aJKqHBD0Ior59+9LLFy81tlGrdi2qUqUK/7Zt
         +zb6+2/xCEPMfebsmSy8u3btkp2qIGywFJ67cC5BeX9/f8IDgs8HhPkXLFKQUqv+2jq35UCk
         9BnSU98+fZnvxiIIyI8jf1QEfRfG2KFDB3YNGIOsKpSvQCNHjKRNmzdJnpv1MThk9RAI/oNR
         o0fpo9lv2sALoOkleP7sOc2bN4/ef3gv2i8U4zZt2mj8HQkZJk2aJKrLQNiHDBlC1mmtWdiv
         X78uOb+KlSpSG+c2vNP43kyYbE5TRWFO796+o48fxHcnoS78TCFBIfzPX5f/Gt/k2jVrWb+p
         X7c+ZUifgexK2pFDbQfe/XRxlipdzM2bN9O69euUFqdSZUpR3TrGc6BagTEev3rQwEEDadjw
         YaK5nRTPSKIg4rabNmnKJeCcO3nqJL+wVmmsqF69epQ7l2Yzqz76Rhu/r/xd1uTbs0dPURPj
         zZs3CZ5hMapeQ6Vb/Cdg3t7erOOJEb7yY0aP4Zc0JCSEzpyO+/pLEVAFoMS7o1y9xL8DpQAS
         jjvW6awpX/58VL1KdY5tqVmzpuhOqm1fmsrv2i2/a6rXg7GlWFHj5TiO37/goIEneueunbRj
         2w66fUcFx3gYyjHD+qI/1/5J0VHR5NjYkVatXkVnT3/1lFeoWIEKFihI/fv3Z8gIFFK8DPra
         YqEfIPxTiurWr0vt2rXTWAQ7w9rVa+nVC3FQYqtWrbguoukQ3wBfkhg5NnKknr168s/QmwCV
         WbFyheT4smXPpq+lSNDOh9gPFPoglB84P8uXK09dunWhSRMnJeA/eKCrgMLxevr0acXzQBx/
         t25xFkljUYJDHoCCcIzhzIoAekg8fCS3bt1iGMerN68UbfNik4mMimTnI57E5OfrR3iOHlVZ
         bFTKL3YWeOjta9pTv779KH/+r5adpDBrz949suhS96XulDmzZmfduXPn6M91f4p2DaHu1jVu
         MSMiImjHrh2iZXFs6t69ezxODEecIkWLyE4LepahCYBQPz/VWkzzowD/ADZCZM2Wlf1i0Cdh
         gm7arCnZ2tqyoUAbZRrv1JJfltCH93FgUyVU074m62zGJI2aEBYR9mgcPfDAmhIUFESPwx+T
         S0cXev/uPcGkiqyCwGTpm54+e0r7vfZzs/v27aPNmzZT1SpVqaVTS3JyctI6Iu/1m9e0dctW
         VualaNHiRfxVT1wOR6Nr165JWv/atW8XH+MB0+zLGM2KPfovV74ctWrZiuCTglCifegZSknM
         6qZeP3OWzIQHX//3se8VO+zU2wDWLFPmTPTbb7/RlStX4vMQw3+GXb+VUytq3KQxNWnSRFH6
         npkzZrL5XRtCvLquu5c2/Wkqq8hckD17dqpatSpV/lyZSpUsRe3atGOz8cWLF2nqlKlUqXIl
         ehHzgnceQxCQuHgAIylsW5iaNG7C53mYiJUQhOz8+fOyRXfv3C1bRlMBKOrNmjXjlx0WpunT
         pku28zT6Kf3www+MZ4NnHnrM7l3yfaN9UGio6hgsQzCZAi08wHUAZw3ZtXMXvYt9RyEPQyj2
         bSwFBAbQxQsX5ZphOE2PHj2oY6eO1HR9U8JxCYSxr127lp+y5cpSbYfaPG8BhpO44eXLl9Pi
         JYtl+1MvgPWF/8fYpEhIhEHCWoIXrkyZMmy2bdq0Kdvkc+bKSTt372Qhgb1+/MTx5PaLW3zq
         FyyuUkSvHENCg0NZtzh86DALav9+/fmLKUVeXl6yu4hcv1K/Fy5cmDq078BFYNGSy+oBXw4e
         EMzRe3bvUdR9yIM4SxWMAtjtpXZG7CBWqa3Y649n/ITxCfrACWDH9h00b8E8ehD0QLR/mLqx
         5g4ODrzeyCqZ2OF5+5bqI6Z6alSvQUOHDP2mrfWe6+mnn36S9QOpV8QRb/Wa1WSTL843ZEzS
         SkggGOpfb2yDEBAQsuXlyZuHPdGAc1untibPDZ7sU/j3yr+ExM84W0KI4DhTv3wmKQx48uQJ
         7yarV67mczPOyZrI+4Y3XbokDYNPSv/qdaA/AXwIRyjwbVJec136EqAtcMbOnj1bUkiKFClC
         w4cPF+0OxzzX/q7kd9uPli1dpmhY2C2xvmKOWP87cX4adYLPafqM6Vrrsthda9WspWhchi6k
         lZBIDaZ2rdocE9C+fXsu5tzGmY8UwP8Ljje3pW7k1MqJatSoQcDtONRxIMRhhD8OT/I8YYXr
         3qM7/W/P/zQGI3l6ejIWzVAEAKOQ0T0yOlLS7KvrGAQfBnYGK2sr+vBBXAGG8h3zIobzTmHH
         Qd3Eugz4cuaUvOlZEHpuQxUDJEa58uTiDwSQ1UeOHmFU+PET2ukgaBtGgZkzZ+rKLr3V15uQ
         QNGH+VZgaK5cueIHCZgH8ic1aNCA/w8ONyxyr5692NKFnWCg60DyveXL8BhYTeBHwSIrIcD0
         ISjr1q1jJVIgGBaU5tRV0o+mMjBdC7sr/B3hT5Iu8HJjEEIQsAvApxT6Rlw3we7d0LEhK70Q
         pkIFC7ERRv0OE8Bhbty4IddtvBk4V45cnDrUN0az4xP3N/p4+9CJUycYFpQUgrUMjsYSxUsk
         pbpB6uhNSITRabJEtGjRgvAIBIeVQIA+I4cULsTEccJrnxdt2bKFFW3AWJQSlFngwk6cPMHG
         BdDBgwc58tCQBK85HIIgZEBh7JmBCCEKIHyA8OGRUuBjnsWQz7Ov2Lhbfrfo2NFjWo+sXNly
         /PEDQQ8SjAeaGkJgmS7GGyTbw3EOuo0pkd6FRJgckMTIZCGXTQ8LLuw62MpXr17NOw6AiNmy
         ZqMlbksIRyYllpiHDx+ysrdk0RL+giIfrJQzNEvWLHxERPAYnJzqLwBeCPg67ty+I7leVSpX
         ia/n4/f1pTTEIuNYimMUHL/AMhl6l8QckL0E1ksQTgmG0LcQJuDc1plWrVjF0BhTI70KCSwm
         OI8iqQMuoMGOgOPP8WPH6cLFC3zOBOoYynTDBg3ZhAxg35QpUxgGASsV/DAgoFfPnD3DJlIf
         Xx9FQoJ6586eY98NjiQ4vkkRLCdSyq3vbV9JIQFYsHSpr46uiCfisG98+adOm8o7JPQxe3t7
         WrlyJfswVPhDJhwx4cwTo+jIaHaIQkhK2sXFzsNBZygCULRL5y4JmtfVZwGBgOMVa4SsL3AU
         42OKJHPGBF1K8VBvQgIvM6L0gEES0Ko4WwL+Dhv56bOnqW+/vvTPP/9wXEdwUDAjZJctW0aO
         jo7Utm1b2rptKz0Jf0KjR48moHGFME0p1G7iyWFXgL5z7949unhO2g+QK+dXvSlxO7C+IeOK
         FGHnyZAx7qh16fIlTgQhRgBO9u7Zmx+MEdawUT+OYqVaePFcOrnQxfPiYwbcJSIqThDRt6HC
         WPEi4+VFyAHGKdCLly8IqAldCAmth48YTgiAg+M2JZDehASe2SyZsySInYCXe/ee3eyhB8Hy
         hS8IUvTA0gX9AbRhwwb+gi5YsIAhHVAy4eFG3ZIlSmp1rEC2Eiwsvupyyd8KFRBPjQm7f0hw
         nF9CjOAfEXI/YbxAJoiR+s24wouHD4E6KYF44H4OUKWqlcimgI2sIAP7BvDix/cfZY0KZcqV
         oSmTprB1ST3lkjDGN2/ffBPLrz5+1IGxRT1OKDE/4LkH7Klz187sfAQK3dRJf0KSMRONGz+O
         /O/5x+kC/5EgIPinOvOQTl8gxIof8DrACeTwVYWHV0gmhwg8pQTTKLBnSFeEG5CkLuNEm1JH
         G+wkchgjGB2wG6Hs4YPi6GCYXmGYkCP76vZ00Es6u/y/l//lqFH4pRo7NqZ1gdKQc+h3iMJE
         DrO+rn0lcxPgI9ezZxzoUhMhyYdYphscb2fPmU3VqlZjL/zkyZMlTdQ7t+9kxyuMCcZE+Mqt
         CX7Xm5CgMWD+EQYMXQRxG0oD/OGNxx+/uCrlUBAQJRNQL4NbopDdBO0hDFmOEJAkRlHPVLnC
         ZNKQdnCJ87LjeInUSWJUzK4Yde3cVW44fFxdsmSJpHADQwdnHkzuwIvB7C1FAKfiQ1Ovfj3a
         s2cPJ1LAUVQTXb96nRYvXszJGTTRtevi+DXkJq5RrQbrlWPHjuW0UjDnS1HAvQCaP28+G2tM
         VR/Ru5CgQYSYwhOOsycWHHm2lNjiZd8giQL4Avbo3SM+6hE7iJI8TlmyaU6PCj0BViQ5QCR0
         CxCOGMGhmuPd8Tv0FiUXyCAdK/gXGCSeHCE8IpzCHocx0gF4ujw2eSjyibiegPy6a9as4bKI
         BoVPqrVza427KILKAPKsXLUytWj21WQvsF4q/RIMCOphyvCYb/xroywPgcqAbgZTuqmSXncS
         9UlCMcMDpCviBx49fsSYIyBL1Y9gujAGXx+kH0VuXfUzNBLlRT+XT9svZh5GiqDjR5R7irFz
         SUU7KsWtwcLXsFFDSSGBkw5RhriyAeEDLh1cCE48KULyt/oN6rPzFsBHYN9w4Q30v8SE3R84
         tOnTp3PiPsGocMPnBocjixFiPtQxdEBVwLQPcKUU4fi2ffv271NIBMbA7q0eyIQIyD279hBu
         eMI9FAAsIreXUoK+geAjHDWGDRlGiAZMbJbESyl85aXabdyoscaf0Z4SOLpQGeWlTKNSDjj1
         AaBPeMnXr1svyY5DBw5xPuHixYvT0KFD2YkJv5IYgR9If4SdCtekAX4OXWrAwAGEnSYxAbYP
         dDcu4gSAFcQwoloOCY5FRWyLcJINIA4GDRmUII8yPPMw8ytxLnr7eCtdfqOUM9hOIjYbnFvx
         gOBwBAL1SeQTjfmrErcB5x+gEYhlQcIFMUL8t9QRRKgnWIoStwO9SImQCTsEykvF1WijmCLO
         pFjxYhQUIH79AATC94YvCwmOUK6urjR//nzJFwjx/UuXLmU0L2A/Tq2dOAoVPqqI8IgEEYg4
         NuXNlzeB4xAmejzakG1RW0XFpXZhRQ0YuFCyC4n6fOAoNMTtsYlTjorxEEqtJoLZVOrmJOwa
         DnUd4pECSD3aqkUrzveriTp17KR4GWG1gmXIc53nt3X+u4IZ8SvqEHKEDOS1yUvbt22PS8ck
         3FgNv6TqgX+qkWMjNoioe7RhaEHINqxz6tn0sbPDV6JEj5KaGBzJyJIpp9vBH4WrppPjrhHF
         C6FW0KhCkpQBK6mDLPNK9ACx+Pl06dNxgBDSasbnARM6Vr10dsXtWBcQCGdvnKv1RQiUwqOU
         MqnM78h4g0dbgulWLGRZ27YSl4d/BrzUlAZWvSx27dj3cUYQUySzFBKl+sSLZ+IX6WAngZXO
         QknnQPp06VkA5YQEcBy5Mkkfhe41zVJIpOIs1Fl2L0C3LO+6s9+8W4ADtXbt2uS130tyojge
         X7h0IT6pn6lxxSyFJHu27GxtkkOshobJx4qb2oKlpPEAflOtWjVZIYHOgojO4UPFIymNOW+z
         FBL4TGB2lcrBC6aHh4VzbDYSGVjIMByoVKES31mDG8ykCFbO2Hcq4KdKhzE1Mksh4R1EsPBI
         cBzhq+s81+nl7hBTW1hTGQ8Q3rbFbCWTTWCs8JUEhwRzDgRTI7MUEphIc+TMochXgtj4kSNH
         cliqhfTPAazDwAEDOau/FL17846zxsCcbWpknkKi8lzDdxGp+pOjwMBARsmOGztOrqjl9yRy
         AMjiVatWcc5jKfI66MU+HVOLMzFLIUHYL/LZIopPCZliyKiScaeUMoi7mTxlssacXOpzuHTx
         Eh04eIAG9FfuI0oOHpilkCBLvdJE281aNKNOnZR7xJNjUcyxD8T5XL50mQPspAghFoDaILO9
         qZBZCgkuEC1RUiYljUqxB9hy3px5BJOxhQzLATh4EcYNIxeQ4GKEaFDcAfPXxr84QtUUyCyF
         BIxFIgkPdw/RAC5kk0TmQvU8VKawIOY8BnjfceVGnXp1OPeaWGQoQisGDxxMK1evpMKFChud
         JWYrJLlz5maQnliCOyRiVgpfMfoqmdEAkOEFOgcC5a57X+f8BdevfXsjGC5LQugx4l46unRk
         5LexyGyFpEzZMtSocSPau3fvN7zFcQypi5TqLcZaHHPtF2gIBGnhQfZN3Lzl5u5GSAj+JdUX
         CgsN4/h4xLCMGD6CkcSwPmL3MQaZrZBga8eXSJOQlCldJkVk6TDGC5HcfSIa09nZmUOKgbiG
         I/jQoUMsIPiYgZCpEhc6GYvMVkjA0CZNm3AsOO4DUady5crpfHOWsRbMXPsFdEXY2cWu5DPW
         3M1aSOyK2VGhwoW+ERKEyFrIwgGlHDBrIUFkXZ8+fWj8jfHxiGAkj7CvYa+UP5ZyFg7oN++W
         KfKzd6/enIgZ17SBkCXRUJF4pjh/y5h054BZ7yRgD7KC4LIgQUiQlrRgQfGkdLqz1NKCuXHA
         7IUEC+bi4hKfTbCWQy3Z6yDMbZEt89GNA9+FkCBNDyxduBQTyryFLBzQhgPfhZDAtLhixQr6
         /Y/fOWGahSwc0IYD34WQgCG4g8/dzV0b3ljKWjjAHLCaO3eu8VyZlkWwcCAFcOC72UlSwFpY
         hmiiHPh/4ZsEaFqyHcwAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
         
         
         
         7
            
          By decision of 31 January 2002, the Opposition Division rejected the opposition, on the ground that there was no likelihood
         of confusion between the marks in question. Observing that it is necessary to take account of the average distinctiveness
         of the earlier marks, it considered that the conflicting signs are entirely different on the visual and aural level and that
         they have a completely different structure. 
         
         
         
         8
            
          On 2 April 2002, the applicant lodged an appeal before OHIM pursuant to Articles 57 to 62 of Regulation No 40/94 against the
         decision of the Opposition Division.
         
         
         
         9
            
          By decision of 27 November 2002 (‘the contested decision’), the Third Chamber of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Essentially,
         it considered that, in spite of the fact that the goods covered by the conflicting marks were partially identical and in view
         of the average distinctiveness of the earlier marks as well as the aural, visual and conceptual differences which can clearly
         be perceived between the conflicting signs, there was no significant likelihood of confusion on the part of the public of
         the Member States of the European Union, and in Austria in particular. That conclusion is all the more apparent because that
         assessment must take account of the average, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer who
         perceives a mark as it is presented to him, without subjecting it to in-depth analysis or translating it into another language.
         
         Forms of order sought
         
         10
            
          The applicant claims that the Court should:
         
         
         
          
         –
            vary the contested decision so as to allow the opposition to the registration of the mark Hai and refuse to register that
               mark;
            
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM;
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            order OHIM to pay the costs.
         
         
         
         
         
         11
            
          OHIM contends that the Court should:
         
         
         
          
         –
            dismiss the action; 
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            order the applicant to pay the costs.
         
         
         
         
         
         12
            
          The intervener contends that the Court should:
         
         
         
          
         –
            dismiss the action in its entirety and uphold the contested decision;
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM;
         
         
         
         
          
         –
            order the applicant to pay the costs.
         
         
         
         Law
         
         13
            
          The applicant asks the Court, essentially, to refuse to register the Community trade mark applied for and to annul the contested
         decision.
         
         The request for refusal to register the Community trade mark applied for
         
         14
            
          By the second part of its first head of claim, the applicant asks the Court, in substance, to order OHIM to refuse to register
         the mark applied for. 
         
         
         
         15
            
          In that regard, it should be noted that, pursuant to Article 63(6) of Regulation No 40/94, OHIM is to be required to take
         the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Community judicature. It is therefore not for the Court of First
         Instance to issue directions to OHIM. It is for the latter to draw the consequences of the operative part of judgments of
         the Court of First Instance and the grounds on which they are based (Case T-331/99 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v OHIM (Giroform) [2001] ECR II-433, paragraph 33; Case T-34/00 Eurocool Logistik  v OHIM (EUROCOOL) [2002] ECR II-683, paragraph 12, and Case T-129/01 Alejandro v OHIM – Anheuser-Busch (BUDMEN) [2003] ECR II-2251, paragraph 22. The second part of the applicant’s first head of claim is therefore inadmissible.
         
         The request for annulment of the contested decision 
         
         16
            
          The applicant puts forward a single plea, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
         
          Arguments of the parties
         
         
         17
            
          The applicant contests the assessment of the Board of Appeal that there is no real likelihood of confusion between the signs
         in question.
         
         
         
         18
            
          In accordance with the formula that a low degree of similarity between the goods or services designated by the marks in question
         can be offset by a high degree of similarity between those marks, and vice versa, the applicant states that, at least as regards
         the goods in Class 32 which are identical, a low degree of similarity between the marks should suffice for there to be a likelihood
         of confusion. The applicant maintains that there is a likelihood of confusion, even where the goods and services are not identical,
         because the marks at issue are in any event extremely similar.
         
         
         
         19
            
          Moreover, the applicant challenges the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the earlier SHARK marks have average distinctiveness.
         The earlier marks consist of a reproduction of an animal which catches the imagination and is, quite evidently, purely fanciful
         in relation to the goods and services in question.
         
         
         
         20
            
          Moreover, the applicant claims that there is a likelihood of confusion where there is similarity from the point of view of
         one of the three aspects – visual, aural or conceptual. It notes that, in the contested decision, the conceptual similarity
         of the marks is established, but that that aspect is wrongly given less weight than the visual and aural aspects. As an example,
         the applicant draws attention to the fact that the Board of Appeal gave more importance to aural similarity than to the semantic
         content of the mark applied for by asserting that the customers concerned would think that ‘Hai’ was a distortion of the English
         word ‘high’.
         
         
         
         21
            
          According to the applicant, the conflicting signs in this case are likely to be confused because they have just one meaning
         which is inherent, clear and immediately understandable. The average consumer immediately perceives the semantic content of
         the marks in question and at once establishes an association between that content and, as a result, between the two signs.
         
         
         
         22
            
          In addition, and contrary to the assertion of the Board of Appeal, that conceptual identity is not cancelled out by the use
         of two different languages. In that respect, referring to the decisions of the Austrian patent office, the applicant claims
         that the Board of Appeal failed to assess the state of the Austrian market, in which knowledge of the English language is
         accepted. Therefore marks made up of words in a foreign language, particularly English, should not be assessed differently
         from those consisting of German words having the same meaning. Accordingly, the public at which the goods and services in
         question are directed understands the meaning of the word ‘shark’, a fact that is indeed accepted by the Board of Appeal.
         
         
         
         23
            
          The applicant adds that the semantic content of the earlier marks is supplemented by their graphic representation in the shape
         of a shark which makes the meaning even more accessible and clear. The word ‘shark’ written in the stylised shape of a shark
         promotes the closeness and the similarity between the marks in question. That has the effect of considerably reducing the
         difference stemming from the different languages.
         
         
         
         24
            
          As for the Board of Appeal’s statement that translations of marks are relevant only if they are common and the relevant public
         assumes that the translated mark comes from the same undertaking or associated undertaking, the applicant submits that it
         suffices that consumers are likely to draw that parallel.
         
         
         
         25
            
          The applicant further states that ‘absolute cross-confusion’, that is to say the likelihood of confusion between a solely
         figurative representation of a word and a pure word mark, is accepted. It should particularly be concluded in this case that
         there is a likelihood of confusion since the earlier marks are not only made up of the figurative element representing a shark.
         
         
         
         26
            
          Finally, the applicant states that there is a likelihood of confusion in a significant part of the European Union. The word
         ‘Hai’ is known not only in German and Finnish, but also in Swedish, Danish and Dutch, the last language also being spoken
         in Belgium. That word is also understood in some Italian and French border areas. In the northern parts of Europe, German
         and English are also understood.
         
         
         
         27
            
          OHIM contends that, in the contested decision, the Board of Appeal applied the principles governing assessment of the likelihood
         of confusion, as they emerge from the case-law, without error and that, while taking into account the parties’ pleas, it correctly
         concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
         
         
         
         28
            
          Given that the earlier marks have only average distinctiveness and taking account of the very marked differences between the
         signs on the visual and aural level, OHIM agrees with the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that, in spite of the partial identity
         of the goods covered by the conflicting signs, the conceptual similarity of the signs is not sufficient in this case to conclude
         that there is a significant likelihood of confusion under trade mark law.
         
         
         
         29
            
          The intervener agrees with the statement of reasons of the contested decision.
         
         
         
         30
            
          In the intervener’s submission, the aural differences which exist between the words ‘Hai’ and ‘shark’ and the graphic form
         of the figurative mark SHARK mean that the signs in question create a different impression and exclude any similarity between
         them.
         
         
         
         31
            
          The applicant’s argument that the average consumer immediately perceives the meaning of the marks at issue and establishes
         a link between them is not realistic. The applicant’s contention asks too much of the consumer and does not correspond to
         real life. Although it is accepted that consumers put more emphasis on similarities than on differences between signs, consumers
         would not identify any shared feature in this case, either in the image or the verbal element. The word ‘Hai’ does not appear
         in the earlier marks and, conversely, the stylised shark image and the word ‘shark’ are not included in the sign filed by
         the intervener. As there are no similar elements, there cannot therefore be a likelihood of confusion.
         
         
         
         32
            
          As regards the use of two languages, the intervener submits that, even if the case-law accepts that the basic vocabulary of
         the English language is understood by Austrian consumers and is translated by its equivalent into German, the word ‘shark’
         cannot be classified among words taken from basic English vocabulary. Moreover, the applicant’s argument that the word ‘shark’
         became well known through the famous film ‘Der weiße Hai’ is fallacious. The film is known in Austria only by its German name,
         and indeed the original English title of the film does not even contain the word ‘shark’. Furthermore, the word ‘shark’ belongs
         to the American, not the English language.
         
         
         
         33
            
          In addition, the intervener takes the view that, contrary to the applicant’s claim, the consumers concerned will not perceive
         the word ‘Hai’ as a German or Dutch name for a carnivorous fish, but also as a distortion of the English word ‘high’ meaning
         top, of quality, good, noble etc. Aurally, the word ‘Hai’ thus gives the sign a double meaning as it plays on the distortion,
         which is, indeed, the purpose of the incorrect spelling of the expression ‘high’. Besides, even if the main meaning of the
         Hai mark were to correspond only to the original meaning of the word ‘Hai’, there would manifestly be no similarity between
         the SHARK and Hai marks because consumers would not easily see the same semantic content in those two words. It is not realistic
         to believe that consumers translate the German or Dutch word ‘Hai’ by the American word ‘shark’ without any other association
         of ideas. Therefore nor is there a likelihood of confusion from that point of view.
         
         
         
         34
            
          Finally, the intervener states that acceptance of ‘absolute cross confusion’ has no bearing in this case, since in the presence
         of a mark which is both verbal and figurative consumers remember mainly the verbal element ‘shark’ and not the graphic element.
         
          Findings of the Court
         
         
         35
            
          Under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied
         for is not to be registered 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. In addition, under Article 8(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Regulation No 40/94, earlier trade marks are
         to mean Community trade marks and trade marks registered in a Member State with a date of application for registration which
         is earlier than the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark.
         
         
         
         36
            
          According to settled case-law, the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the
         same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion.
         
         
         
         37
            
          According to the same line of case-law, the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, depending on the perception
         on the part of the relevant public of the signs and of the goods or services in question, taking into account all factors
         relevant to the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and the similarity of the goods
         or services covered (see Case T-162/01 Laboratorios RTB  v OHIM – Giorgio Beverly Hills (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS) [2003] ECR II-2821, paragraphs 31 to 33, and the case-law cited).
         
         
         
         38
            
          In this case, the earlier marks were the subject of a national registration, in Austria, and a Community registration. Therefore,
         the relevant territory for the analysis of likelihood of confusion is the whole of the European Union and Austria in particular.
         Given that the goods in question are everyday goods, the public targeted is the average consumer, who is deemed to be reasonably
         well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It is common ground that the goods in question, that is, energy drinks,
         are directed above all at a young public.
         
         
         
         39
            
          Further, even though Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 does not contain a provision similar to Article 7(2) to the effect that
         an application to register a trade mark may be refused where the absolute ground for refusal obtains in only part of the Community,
         the same solution should be applied in the present case. It follows that registration must also be refused even where the
         relative ground for refusal obtains in only part of the Community (Case T-355/02 Mülhens v OHIM – Zirh International (ZIRH) [2004] ECR II-0000, paragraph 36).
         
         
         
         40
            
          In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is appropriate to compare first the goods concerned and second the conflicting
         signs.
         
         
         – Comparison of the goods
         
         
         41
            
          According to case-law, in assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to
         them should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method
         of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary (Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 23).
         
         
         
         42
            
          The conflicting marks relate to certain goods within the same class, that is, Class 32, the description of which, moreover,
         is broadly identical. 
         
         
         
         43
            
          The goods included in Class 5 referred to in the trade mark application can also be goods used in the preparation of drinks,
         especially energy drinks. As for the goods in Class 33, which include alcoholic drinks, it should be noted that energy drinks
         are currently often marketed and consumed with alcoholic drinks.
         
         
         
         44
            
          Furthermore, all the goods in question in Classes 5, 32 and 33 are usually subject to widespread distribution, from the food
         section of a department store to bars and cafes.
         
         
         
         45
            
          As regards services within Classes 35 and 42 referred to in the trade mark application, it should be noted that they are less
         similar to the goods covered by the earlier marks. The fact that alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks are promoted at trade
         fairs and are often consumed in restaurants does not suffice to create a link between those goods and the services in Classes
         35 and 42.
         
         
         
         46
            
          It must therefore be concluded that the goods within Class 32 are identical. The goods in Classes 5 and 33 referred to in
         the trade mark application are linked to the goods in Class 32, covered by the earlier marks, to the extent that they must
         be regarded as similar. On the other hand, the services included in Classes 35 and 42, named in the trade mark application,
         and the goods covered by the earlier marks cannot be regarded as being similar.
         
         
         – Comparison of the signs
         
         
         47
            
          It is clear from settled case-law that the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, as far as concerns the visual,
         aural or conceptual similarity of the conflicting marks, must be based on the overall impression given by them, bearing in
         mind, inter alia, their distinctive and dominant components (see Case T-292/01 Phillips-Van Heusen  v OHIM – Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel (BASS) [2003] ECR II-0000, paragraph 47, and the case-law cited). 
         
         
         
         48
            
          The question whether the degree of similarity between the marks at issue on the visual, aural and conceptual levels is sufficiently
         great for there to be a likelihood of confusion between them must be examined in the light of those considerations.
         
         
         
         49
            
          In this case, on the visual level, the two signs Hai and SHARK are clearly distinguished by their graphic representation since
         only the SHARK mark appears in figurative form. In that respect, it should be noted that the graphics of the letters of the
         word SHARK reproduce the form of a shark, while the Hai sign is made up exclusively of the word ‘Hai’. Even in their verbal
         aspects, the conflicting signs (‘Hai’ and ‘shark’) must be regarded as dissimilar, although they both contain the combination
         of letters ‘h’ and ‘a’. The two signs are therefore not similar on the visual level.
         
         
         
         50
            
          Aurally, it is clear that the signs in question do not have any similarity.
         
         
         
         51
            
          On the conceptual level, it is not disputed that the English word ‘shark’ is translated as ‘Hai’ in German and Finnish, as
         ‘haai’ in Dutch and as ‘haj’ in Danish and Swedish. It is therefore probable that people who speak those languages understand
         both ‘shark’ and ‘Hai’ as meaning ‘shark’. That is above all the case for the targeted public, given that they are young people
         who generally have sufficient knowledge of English to understand the meaning of the word ‘shark’. That is also the case for
         people who do not immediately recognise the English word ‘shark’, but who understand its meaning when they see the shark image.
         The semantic content of the earlier marks is supplemented by their graphics in the form of a shark which make their meaning
         even more accessible and clear. It should therefore be found that there is a conceptual similarity between the signs in question
         which, however, depends on prior translation.
         
         
         
         52
            
          It also appears that the mark applied for can translate a play on words, a distortion of the English word ‘high’. However,
         that meaning is not obvious and is not sufficient to cancel out the conceptual similarity between the conflicting signs.
         
         
         
         53
            
          Consequently, there is no visual or aural similarity between the signs in question, but some conceptual similarity which depends
         on prior translation.
         
         
         
         54
            
          The question whether that conceptual similarity is sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion in this case must therefore
         be assessed globally.
         
         
         – Global assessment of the signs in question
         
         
         55
            
          According to case-law, where the earlier mark is not especially well known to the public and consists of an image with little
         imaginative content, the mere fact that the two marks are conceptually similar is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood
         of confusion (Case C-251/95 SABEL [1997] ECR I-6191, paragraph 25).
         
         
         
         56
            
          The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion. It is therefore not impossible that
         the conceptual similarity resulting from the fact that two marks use images with analogous semantic content may give rise
         to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per se or because they
         are well known on the market (see, to that effect, SABEL, cited above, paragraph 24). Such marks therefore enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character (Canon, cited above, paragraph 18, and Case C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 20).
         
         
         
         57
            
          In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, an overall
         assessment must be made of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been
         registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings
         (Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee [1999] ECR I-2779, paragraph 49, and Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, cited above, paragraph 22).
         
         
         
         58
            
          In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including
         the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered;
         the market share held by the mark; how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; the
         amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark; the proportion of the relevant section of the public which, because
         of the mark, identifies the goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking; and statements from chambers of
         commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations (Windsurfing Chiemsee, cited above, paragraph 51, and Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, cited above, paragraph 23).
         
         
         
         59
            
          In this case, the applicant did not plead that its marks were recognised in the market, only that they have a high distinctive
         character per se. In assessing their distinctive character account must therefore be taken, with their other inherent qualities,
         of whether the earlier marks contain descriptive elements or not.
         
         
         
         60
            
          It is not disputed in this case that the earlier SHARK marks do not contain any descriptive element. They are marks with special
         graphics the letters of which have stylised characters so that the whole of the sign calls to mind the form of a shark, the
         ‘s’ being the head, the ‘a’ the dorsal fin and the ‘k’ the tail of the animal. It should be noted that the animal chosen and
         the product covered by the earlier marks are not incidental: a shark is used to designate energy drinks. Those marks, taken
         as a whole, may be regarded as striking and attention-grabbing. Such marks are also more easily committed to memory by the
         relevant public.
         
         
         
         61
            
          Consequently, the inherent qualities of the earlier marks give them a relatively high distinctive character, contrary to what
         OHIM and the intervener claim.
         
         
         
         62
            
          Therefore, having established that this is a question of goods which are partly identical and earlier marks with a distinctive
         character per se, it must be examined whether, in this case, conceptual similarity alone, which depends on prior translation,
         is sufficient to conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion.
         
         
         
         63
            
          In that respect, it should be stated that the goods in question are energy drinks intended for a young public which is generally
         acquainted with branded goods. As the Board of Appeal correctly stated, those goods are usually subject to widespread distribution,
         for example, in supermarkets, where the public buys them above all ‘on sight’. Nor should the importance of verbal orders
         in restaurants, cafés and bars be overlooked.
         
         
         
         64
            
          In the light of all the foregoing, it must be held that the significant visual and aural differences between the marks in
         question are such as to cancel out, to a large extent, their conceptual similarity which depends on prior translation. The
         degree of conceptual similarity between two marks is of less importance where the relevant public, at the time of purchase,
         is called on to see and pronounce the name of the mark.
         
         
         
         65
            
          It must therefore be held that the degree of similarity between the marks at issue is not sufficiently great for the Court
         to make a finding that the public might believe that the goods in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case
         may be, from undertakings which are economically linked. 
         
         
         
         66
            
          Having regard to the differences between the conflicting signs, that assessment is not invalidated by the fact that the goods
         and services covered by the mark applied for are partly identical to the goods covered by the earlier marks.
         
         
         
         67
            
          In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal was right to conclude that there was no likelihood of confusion between the mark
         applied for and the earlier marks. 
         
         
         
         68
            
          As regards the national decisions cited by the parties, it is settled case-law that registrations already made in the Member
         States are a factor which may only be taken into consideration, without being given decisive weight, for the purposes of registering
         a Community trade mark (Case T-122/99 Procter & Gamble  v OHIM (Soap bar shape) [2000] ECR II-265, paragraph 61; Case T-24/00 Sunrider  v OHIM (VITALITE) [2001] ECR II-449, paragraph 33, and Case T-337/99 Henkel  v OHIM (Round red and white tablet) [2001] ECR II-2597, paragraph 58).
         
         
         
         69
            
          So far as concerns OHIM’s practice, it is apparent from the case-law that decisions concerning registration of a sign as a
         Community trade mark which the Boards of Appeal are called on to take under Regulation No 40/94 are adopted in the exercise
         of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion. Accordingly, the registrability of a sign as a Community trade
         mark must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation, as interpreted by the Community judicature, and not on the basis
         of a previous practice of the Boards of Appeal (Case T-106/00 Streamserve v OHIM(STREAMSERVE) [2002] ECR II-723, paragraph 66; Joined Cases T-79/01 and T-86/01 Bosch  v OHIM (Kit Pro and Kit Super Pro) [2002] ECR II-4881, paragraph 32, and Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02 Axions and Belce  v OHIM (Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape) [2003] ECR II-1897, paragraph 51).
         
         
         
         70
            
          In those circumstances, the applicant’s sole plea must be rejected and the action in its entirety dismissed.
         
         
         Costs
         71
            
          Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been
         applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since OHIM and the intervener have applied for costs and the applicant has
         been unsuccessful, the applicant must be ordered to pay their costs.
         
         
          On those grounds,
         
         
         
            
            THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
         
         
          hereby:
         
            
            
             
               1.
                  Dismisses the action;
               
             Orders the applicant to pay the costs. 
            
            
                  Legal
               
               
                  Tiili
               
               
                  Vadapalas
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
         
         
          Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 March 2005.
         
         
         
         
                  H. Jung
               
               
                  H. Legal
               
            
         
         
         
                  Registrar
               
               
                  President
               
            
      
      
          1 –
            
            Language of the case: German.