CELEX: 62007TJ0402
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-25
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 March 2009.#Kaul GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-402/07.

Case T-402/07
      Kaul GmbH
      v
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      (Community trade mark − Opposition proceedings − Application for the Community word mark ARCOL − Earlier Community word mark
         CAPOL – Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Rights of the defence – Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
      
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.      Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Implementation of a judgment annulling
            a decision of one of the Boards of Appeal
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(6))
      2.      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
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))
      3.      Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Implementation of a judgment annulling
            a decision of one of the Boards of Appeal
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(6))
      4.      Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Opposition proceedings
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2))
      5.      Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(6))
      6.      Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment
      (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43)
      7.      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
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))
      8.      Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
            by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity
            of the marks concerned
      9.      Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Practice of the Office in previous decisions
      (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 131(4)) 
      1.      In order to comply with its obligation under Article 63(6) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark to take the
         measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Community judicature annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal,
         the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) has to ensure that the appeal leads to a new
         decision of one of its Boards of Appeal. In that regard, it may reallocate the case to another Board of Appeal.
      
      (see para. 23)
      2.      Although, under the principle of the interdependence between the factors taken into account in a global assessment of the
         likelihood of confusion, and in particular between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered,
         a lesser degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the
         marks, and vice versa, for the purposes of applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, 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 was registered. Those conditions are cumulative.
      
      Thus, having found there to be no similarity between the mark applied for and the earlier mark, the Office for Harmonisation
         in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is not bound to take into consideration the supposed well-known character
         of the earlier mark, since it is properly entitled to conclude that there was no likelihood of confusion, whatever the supposed
         especially distinctive character of the earlier mark.
      
      (see paras 28, 44)
      3.      Following the annulment by a Community Court of a decision of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
         in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) rejecting an opposition to registration of a Community trade mark, the Board
         of Appeal to which the case is reallocated must carry out a fresh examination of the appeal. In so far as the judgment annulling
         the decision has not taken a position on whether or not the marks at issue are similar, the Board of Appeal must re-examine
         that question, on which it may reach its own conclusion, independently of the position adopted in the earlier annulled decision.
      
      (see paras 38-39)
      4.      The relevance of the facts and evidence submitted to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
         Designs) by the parties to opposition proceedings outside the time-limits prescribed for that purpose constitutes one of the
         criteria which the Office must take into account in order to decide, when exercising its discretion under Article 74(2) of
         Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, whether or not to take account of such facts and evidence.
      
      (see para. 42)
      5.      The Community judicature carries out a review of the legality of the decisions of the adjudicating bodies of the Office for
         Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). If it holds that such a decision, called into question in
         an action before it, is vitiated by illegality, it must annul the decision. It may not dismiss the action while substituting
         its own reasoning for that of the competent body of the Office, which is the author of the contested act. Therefore, if a
         Community Court finds that the reasoning of a decision of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office is vitiated by an error
         of law, it is not entitled itself to reject the opposition for a reason which was not stated in the decision challenged before
         it. 
      
      (see paras 47, 49)
      6.      Under Article 43 of the Statute of the Court, if the meaning or scope of a judgment is in doubt, it is for the Community Court
         which gave judgment to construe it. Accordingly, there is no presumption that where a judgment annulling a decision of one
         of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) can be interpreted
         in a number of ways, the version most favourable to the applicant should be preferred. The Board of Appeal to which the case
         is referred following such an annulment is not bound to hear the applicant concerning the interpretation of the judgment annulling
         the decision. If the applicant or the Office, both parties to the proceedings before the Community judicature which resulted
         in that annulment, believe there to be a doubt as to the interpretation of the judgment annulling the decision, it is for
         them to bring the matter before the competent Community Court.
      
       (see paras 62-63)
      7.      For producers of food and confectionery products, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b)
         of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark between the word sign ARCOL, for which registration as a Community trade
         mark is sought for ‘chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs’ within Class 1 of the Nice Agreement as well as for goods
         within Classes 17 and 20 of that Agreement, and the word mark CAPOL, registered previously as a Community trade mark for ‘chemical
         preparations for keeping fresh and preserving foodstuffs, namely, raw materials for smoothing and preserving prepared food
         products, in particular confectionery’ within Class 1 of the Nice Agreement, given that the marks at issue are not in any
         way identical or similar and that, therefore, that provision is not applicable, even though the goods covered by the marks
         are identical.
      
      (see paras 76, 92)
      8.      The fact that two word marks have the same number of letters is not, as such, of any particular significance for the public
         targeted by those marks, even for a specialised public. Since the alphabet is made up of a limited number of letters, which,
         moreover, are not all used with the same frequency, it is inevitable that many words will have the same number of letters
         and even share some of them, but they cannot, for that reason alone, be regarded as visually similar.
      
      In addition, the public is not, in general, aware of the exact number of letters in a word mark and, consequently, will not
         notice, in the majority of cases, that two conflicting marks have the same number of letters.
      
      What matters in the assessment of the visual similarity of two word marks is, rather, the presence, in each of them, of several
         letters in the same order.
      
      (see paras 81-83)
      9.      Decisions concerning registration of a sign as a Community trade mark which the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
         in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) are called on to take under Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
         are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion. Accordingly, the question whether
         a sign may be registered as a Community trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation, as interpreted
         by the Community Courts, and not on the basis of a previous practice of the Office. Those considerations are all the more
         valid as regards a declaration supposedly made by the Office representative before the Community Courts, particularly because,
         in the light of the independence of the President and members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office, laid down in Article
         131(4) of Regulation No 40/94, they are not bound by the position adopted by the Office in a dispute before the Community
         Courts.
      
      (see paras 98-99)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
      25 March 2009 (*)
      
      (Community trade mark − Opposition proceedings − Application for the Community word mark ARCOL − Earlier Community word mark
         CAPOL – Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Rights of the defence – Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
      
      In Case T‑402/07,
      Kaul GmbH, established in Elmshorn (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers,
      
      applicant,
      v
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by G. Schneider, acting as Agent,
      
      defendant,
      the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been
      Bayer AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany),
      
      ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2007 (Case R 782/2000‑2), concerning
         opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG,
      
      THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fifth Chamber),
      composed of M. Vilaras (Rapporteur), President, M. Prek and V.M. Ciucă, Judges,
      Registrar: N. Rosner, Administrator,
      having regard to the application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 6 November 2007,
      having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 21 February 2008,
      further to the hearing on 20 November 2008,
      gives the following
      Judgment
       Background to the case
      1        On 3 April 1996, Atlantic Richfield Co. filed an application for a Community trade mark with the Office for Harmonisation
         in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), under Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
         Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as amended.
      
      2        The mark in respect of which registration was sought is the word mark ARCOL.
      
      3        The goods in respect of which registration of the mark was sought fall within Classes 1, 17 and 20 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. Among the goods in Class 1 referred to in the application for registration are ‘chemical substances for preserving
         foodstuffs’.
      
      4        The trade mark application was published in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin on 20 July 1998.
      
      5        On 20 October 1998, the applicant, Kaul GmbH, filed an opposition, under Article 42(1) of Regulation No 40/94, to the registration
         of the mark applied for, with regard to the ‘chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs’, falling within Class 1. The opposition
         was based on an earlier Community trade mark, registered on 24 February 1998, bearing the number 49106. That earlier mark
         consists of the word mark CAPOL and covers goods described as ‘chemical preparations for keeping fresh and preserving foodstuffs,
         namely, raw materials for smoothing and preserving prepared food products, in particular confectionery’, falling within Class
         1. In support of its opposition, the applicant relied on the relative ground for refusal referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of
         Regulation No 40/94.
      
      6        By decision of 30 June 2000, the Opposition Division rejected the opposition on the ground that, even if the goods were identical,
         there could be no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue because they were visually and phonetically different.
      
      7        By letter of 17 July 2000, received on 24 July 2000, OHIM was informed by Bayer AG of the transfer to that company of the
         application for registration of the trade mark ARCOL filed by Atlantic Richfield. The transfer was entered in the Register
         of Community trade marks on 17 November 2000, pursuant to Article 17(5) and Article 24 of Regulation No 40/94.
      
      8        On 24 July 2000, the applicant filed a notice of appeal under Articles 57 to 62 of Regulation No 40/94 against the Opposition
         Division’s decision.
      
      9        In support of its appeal, the applicant claimed in particular, as it had argued previously before the Opposition Division,
         that the earlier mark had a highly distinctive character for which reason it should, in accordance with the Court’s case-law,
         benefit from increased protection. In that regard, the applicant nevertheless asserted that such a highly distinctive character
         resulted not only from the lack of descriptive character of the term ‘capol’ for the goods in question, as it had already
         submitted before the Opposition Division, but also from the fact that that mark had become well known through use. In order
         to substantiate that well-known character, the applicant produced, in the annex to its written statement before the Board
         of Appeal, an affidavit by its managing director, and a list of its customers.
      
      10      By decision of 4 March 2002, notified to the applicant on 25 March 2002 (‘the 2002 decision’), the Third Board of Appeal of
         OHIM dismissed the appeal. The Third Board of Appeal found the goods covered by the requested and earlier trade marks to be
         identical and having compared the two signs at issue from a visual, phonetic and conceptual standpoint, then carried out a
         global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, finding, inter alia, that it could not take into account the supposedly
         highly distinctive character of the earlier mark, linked to the fact that it was well known, since such a factor and the evidence
         mentioned above seeking to substantiate it were introduced for the first time in support of the appeal brought before it.
      
      11      On 24 May 2002, the applicant brought an action before the Court of First Instance against the 2002 decision, registered as
         Case T-164/02. In support of its action, the applicant relied upon four pleas in law alleging, first, breach of the obligation
         to examine the evidence adduced by it before the Board of Appeal, second, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No
         40/94, third, infringement of the principles of procedural law acknowledged in the Member States and the procedural rules
         applicable before OHIM, and, fourth, breach of the duty to state reasons.
      
      12      In its judgment in Case T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM – Bayer (ARCOL) [2004] ECR II‑3807, the Court of First Instance accepted the first plea in law and annulled the 2002 decision, without ruling
         on the other pleas in the action. In essence, the Court considered that, in the 2002 decision, the Third Board of Appeal had
         infringed Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94, by refusing to consider the factual evidence adduced by the applicant for the
         first time before it in order to prove the highly distinctive character of the earlier mark resulting from the use, claimed
         by the applicant, of that mark on the market.
      
      13      On 25 January 2005, OHIM appealed to the Court of Justice against the judgment in ARCOL, cited in paragraph 12 above. In Case C-29/05 P OHIM v Kaul [2007] ECR I‑2213, the Court of Justice allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment in ARCOL. Giving final judgment itself in the matter, the Court then annulled the 2002 decision.
      
      14      The Court of Justice found that the Third Board of Appeal had refused, in the 2002 decision, to take into account the facts
         and evidence submitted by the applicant in support of its appeal, by holding, essentially, that the taking into account of
         such information was automatically precluded since those facts and that evidence had not been submitted earlier before the
         Opposition Division within the time-limit set by that division. According to the Court of Justice, that reasoning infringes
         Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, which grants the Board of Appeal, when presented with facts and evidence which are submitted
         late, a discretion as to whether or not to take account of such information when making the decision which it is called upon
         to give. Since, instead of exercising the discretion which it thus has, the Third Board of Appeal had wrongly considered itself
         to be lacking any discretion as to whether to take account or not of the facts and evidence at issue, the Court held that
         the 2002 decision had to be annulled (OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, paragraphs 67 to 70).
      
      15      By decision of 19 June 2007, communicated to the parties to the proceedings before OHIM on 22 June 2007, the Presidium of
         the Boards of Appeal of OHIM reallocated the case to the Second Board of Appeal.
      
      16      By decision of 1 August 2007 (‘the contested decision’), notified to the applicant on 6 September 2007, the Second Board of
         Appeal of OHIM dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Opposition Division which had rejected the
         opposition. In essence, the Second Board of Appeal, after finding that the marks at issue could not, in any way, be regarded
         as similar by the relevant public, made up of manufacturers of food and confectionery products, came to the conclusion that
         one of the conditions for the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 was not satisfied and that the Opposition
         Division had been correct to reject the opposition. Having regard to that conclusion, the Second Board of Appeal found that
         the facts and evidence presented by the applicant for the first time at the appeal stage before the Board of Appeal in support
         of its argument that the earlier mark had acquired a highly distinctive character resulting from its use on the market were
         irrelevant, because such an argument, even if it were proved, could not have any bearing on the application of Article 8(1)(b)
         of Regulation No 40/94 in the present case.
      
       Forms of order sought by the parties
      17      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
      –        annul the contested decision;
      –        uphold the opposition;
      –        order OHIM to pay the costs.
      18      OHIM contends that the Court should:
      
      –        dismiss the action;
      –        order the applicant to pay the costs.
       Law
       The first plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 63(6) and Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94
      19      The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal disregarded the operative part and the reasoning of OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, by not exercising at all, or not exercising correctly, its discretion, deriving from Article
         74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, as to whether or not to take account of the facts and evidence relied upon for the first time
         before it. According to the applicant, if the Board of Appeal had correctly applied the guidance given by the Court of Justice
         in that judgment, it would have had to rule in the applicant’s favour.
      
      20      OHIM disputes the applicant’s arguments.
      
      21      According to settled case-law, a judgment annulling a measure, such as OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, takes effect ex tunc and thus has the effect of retroactively eliminating the annulled measure from the legal system (Joined Cases 97/86, 99/86,
         193/86 and 215/86 Asteris and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 2181, paragraph 30; Joined Cases T-481/93 and T-484/93 Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II‑2941, paragraph 46; and Case T-171/99 Corus UK v Commission [2001] ECR II‑2967, paragraph 50).
      
      22      According to the same case-law, in order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure and to implement it fully, the institution
         that is the author of the measure is required to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the
         grounds constituting its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated
         in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and,
         on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which
         the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure (order of the Court of Justice in Case
         C-8/99 P Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez v Parliament [2000] ECR I‑6031, paragraphs 19 and 20; see Case T-324/02 McAuley v Council [2003] ECR-SC I-A-337 and II-1657, paragraph 56 and case-law cited). 
      
      23      In the present case, following annulment of the 2002 decision, the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal
         again became pending. In order to comply with its obligation under Article 63(6) of Regulation No 40/94 to take the measures
         necessary to comply with the Court’s judgment, OHIM had to ensure that the appeal led to a new decision of a Board of Appeal.
         That was indeed what occurred because the case was reallocated to the Second Board of Appeal, which adopted the contested
         decision. 
      
      24      The applicant does not contest the lawfulness of the reallocation of the case to the Second Board of Appeal. It nevertheless
         argues that the latter confined itself to declaring that the 2002 decision was well founded and that the facts and evidence
         which the applicant had submitted for the first time at the appeal stage before the Board of Appeal were irrelevant and, therefore,
         inadmissible, without exercising its discretion under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 to decide whether or not to take
         those facts and evidence into account.
      
      25      In order to examine this argument it should be recalled that, 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’.
      
      26      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. According
         to the same case-law, the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, according to the perception which the relevant
         public has of the signs and the goods or services in question, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances
         of the case, including the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods and services covered
         (order of the Court of Justice of 24 April 2007 in Case C-131/06 P Castellblanch v OHIM, not published in the ECR, paragraph 55; see Case T-162/01 Laboratorios RTB v OHIM – Giorgio Beverly Hills (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS) [2003] ECR II‑2821, paragraphs 30 to 33 and the case-law cited).
      
      27      In addition, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion. Therefore, marks with
         a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection
         than marks with a less distinctive character. The distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation,
         must therefore be taken into account when assessing whether there exists a likelihood of confusion (see judgment of 17 April
         2008 in Case C‑108/07 P Ferrero Deutschland v OHMI and Cornu, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 32 and 33 and the case-law cited).
      
      28      While it is the case that, under the principle of the interdependence between the factors taken into account in a global assessment
         of the likelihood of confusion, and in particular between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services
         covered, a lesser degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between
         the marks, and vice versa (judgment of 15 March 2007 in Case C‑171/06 P T.I.M.E. ART v OHIM, not published in the ECR, paragraph 35), the Court of Justice has held that, 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 was registered. Those conditions are cumulative (Case C‑106/03 P Vedial v OHIM [2004] ECR I‑9573, paragraph 51, and Case C‑234/06 P Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM [2007] ECR I‑7333, paragraph 48).
      
      29      It follows that, where the goods or the services covered by the trade marks at issue are identical, if those trade marks,
         considered individually, do not display the minimum degree of similarity required for it to be possible to establish a likelihood
         of confusion solely on the basis of the highly distinctive character of the earlier mark or solely because the goods or services
         covered by the earlier marks and those covered by the trade mark applied for are identical, the opposition must be rejected,
         without the principle of interdependence in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion precluding such a result
         (see Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM, paragraphs 50 and 51).
      
      30      In the present case, in paragraphs 30 to 35 of the 2002 decision, the Third Board of Appeal carried out a global assessment
         of the likelihood of confusion and concluded that ‘despite the identity of the goods, … in view of the important visual and
         phonetic differences between the marks, which clearly outweigh in importance the visual and phonetic similarities which [the
         applicant] argues exist, the fact that the market is highly specialised and given the likely expertise of the typical consumer’,
         there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue in the case.
      
      31      As the case-law referred to in paragraphs 26 and 27 above indicates, the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion
         between two marks necessitates the taking into account of all factors relevant to the case, including whether the earlier
         mark is highly distinctive. Having decided, in the 2002 decision, to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion
         between the marks at issue, the Third Board of Appeal, as follows from OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, at paragraphs 67 to 70, had first of all to examine the admissibility of the applicant’s new
         argument relating to the well-known character of the earlier mark, which it raised for the first time at the appeal stage
         before the Board of Appeal, and of the items of evidence offered in support of that argument. 
      
      32      The error of law which led to the annulment of the 2002 decision in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, was made by the Third Board of Appeal precisely during that preliminary examination. As the
         Court held in that judgment, the Third Board of Appeal, instead of exercising, for the purposes of possibly taking into account
         the facts and evidence relating to the well-known character claimed for the earlier mark, the discretion conferred on it by
         Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, wrongly concluded, in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the 2002 decision, that it enjoyed no such
         discretion, which led it to disregard the facts and evidence raised before it by the applicant for the first time at the stage
         of the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division. 
      
      33      The Second Board of Appeal, to which the case was reallocated following the annulment of the 2002 decision, dismissed, after
         re-examination, the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division, on the ground that the earlier mark
         and the mark applied for could not in any way be regarded as identical or similar by the relevant public and that, therefore,
         there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in the instant case (paragraphs
         26 to 28 of the contested decision). 
      
      34      Without prejudice to the examination of the conclusion of the Second Board of Appeal with regard to the absence of any similarity
         between the marks at issue, a conclusion which the applicant contests in its third plea in law examined below, it must be
         held that, in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division and confirming that decision
         on the ground that the marks at issue were not identical or similar, the Second Board of Appeal correctly applied the case-law
         referred to in paragraph 28 above, to which it also refers in paragraph 26 of the contested decision. 
      
      35      In addition, and contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, the Second Board of Appeal did not confine itself, in the contested
         decision, to declaring that the 2002 decision did not contain any error. 
      
      36      In that regard, it should be pointed out, first, that the Second Board of Appeal considered, in paragraph 24 of the contested
         decision, that only the reasons given in the 2002 decision concerning the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the
         marks at issue and reproduced in paragraph 23 of the contested decision were free of error and could consequently justify
         the conclusion, set out in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the contested decision, that there was no similarity between those marks.
         
      
      37      It must, secondly, be noted that the Third Board of Appeal had not, in the 2002 decision, referred clearly and unequivocally
         to such a conclusion, as is confirmed by the fact that it went on to carry out, in paragraphs 30 to 35 of that decision, a
         global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, which would not have been necessary, in accordance with the case-law referred
         to in paragraph 29 above, if that Board of Appeal had concluded that the marks at issue, on an overall comparison, were different.
         
      
      38      By contrast, the Second Board of Appeal clearly concluded, in paragraphs 26 to 28 of the contested decision, that the marks
         in question were neither identical nor similar. Since, following the annulment of the 2002 decision, the Second Board of Appeal
         had to carry out a fresh examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division, it also had
         to re-examine the question whether the two marks at issue were identical or similar, on which it could reach its own conclusion,
         independently of the position adopted by the Third Board of Appeal. 
      
      39      The Second Board of Appeal was also not bound, on that point, by the operative part or the reasoning in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, since, in that judgment, the Court did not take any position whatsoever on whether the marks
         at issue were similar or not. That question could only have been examined, if appropriate, in connection with a plea alleging
         infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of Justice, like the Court of First Instance before it,
         annulled the contested decision without examining that plea. 
      
      40      Taking into account its conclusion that the marks at issue were not in any way similar, the Second Board of Appeal found,
         in paragraph 25 of the contested decision, that the facts and evidence concerning the supposed well-known character of the
         earlier mark, submitted by the applicant for the first time at the appeal stage before the Board of Appeal ‘[were] irrelevant
         to the outcome of the opposition and so [were] inadmissible since, even if the facts alleged were fully proved, it could not
         have any bearing on the application of Article 8(1)(b) of [Regulation No 40/94] in this case’.
      
      41      The applicant claims that, by thus refusing to take into account those facts and evidence, the Second Board of Appeal infringed
         Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, as interpreted by the judgment in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above.
      
      42      The relevance of the facts and evidence submitted to OHIM by the parties to opposition proceedings outside the time-limits
         prescribed for that purpose constitutes one of the criteria which OHIM must take into account in order to decide, when exercising
         its discretion under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, whether or not to take account of such facts and evidence (see,
         to that effect, OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, paragraph 44).
      
      43      Consequently, the Second Board of Appeal cannot be accused of infringing the latter provision and disregarding OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, when, in deciding to ignore the facts and evidence submitted by the applicant for the first
         time at the stage of its appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division, it took into account the complete lack of
         relevance of such facts and evidence for the resolution of the case.
      
      44      In any case, the applicant’s complaint relating to the alleged infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94 is irrelevant.
         Having found that there was no similarity between the mark applied for and the earlier mark, the Second Board of Appeal was
         not bound to take into consideration the supposed well-known character of the earlier mark, since it was properly entitled
         to conclude that there was no likelihood of confusion, whatever the supposed especially distinctive character of the earlier
         mark (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 June 2008 in Case T‑224/06 Otto v OHIM – L’Altra Moda (l’Altra Moda), not published in the ECR, paragraph 50). 
      
      45      Consequently, even if the refusal of the Second Board of Appeal to take into consideration, in the exercise of its discretion
         deriving from Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, the supposed well-known character of the earlier mark and the evidence
         supporting that was an error of law, such an error had no effect on the operative part of the contested decision, which was
         properly based, in law, on the conclusion that the mark applied for and the earlier mark are neither identical nor similar.
         
      
      46      Finally, the applicant claims that the statement by the Second Board of Appeal, in paragraph 30 of the contested decision,
         that ‘the error of law committed by the Third Board of Appeal with the infringement of Article 74(2) [of Regulation No 40/94]
         was, after all, not sufficient to warrant the annulment of [the 2002 decision]’ shows that the Second Board of Appeal did
         not take into account the guidance given in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above.
      
      47      That argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, paragraph 30 of the contested decision appears to disregard the fact that the
         Court of Justice, having found that the reasoning of the 2002 decision was vitiated by an error of law concerning the application
         of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, was not entitled itself to reject the opposition for a reason, namely the lack of
         any similarity between the marks at issue, which was not stated in the 2002 decision.
      
      48      While Article 63(3) of Regulation No 40/94 states that the Court of Justice ‘has jurisdiction to annul or to alter the contested
         decision’, that paragraph must be read in the light of the preceding paragraph, according to which ‘[t]he action may be brought
         on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaty, of [Regulation
         No 40/94] or of any rule of law relating to their application or misuse of power’ and in the context of Articles 229 EC and
         230 EC (Case T-163/98 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (BABY-DRY) [1999] ECR II‑2383, paragraphs 50 and 51, and Case T‑373/03 Solo Italia v OHIM − Nuova Sala (PARMITALIA) [2005] ECR II‑1881, paragraph 25).
      
      49      It follows that the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, where it sets aside the judgment of the Court of First
         Instance and gives judgment itself on the action, carry out a review of the legality of the decisions of OHIM bodies. If they
         hold that such a decision, called into question in an action before them, is vitiated by illegality, they must annul it. They
         may not dismiss the action while substituting their own reasoning for that of the competent OHIM body which is the author
         of the contested act (see, to that effect and by analogy, Case C‑164/98 P DIR International Film and Others v Commission [2000] ECR I‑447, paragraph 38).
      
      50      Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the Second Board of Appeal was not called upon to rule either on the substance of
         the 2002 decision, which retroactively disappeared from the legal system after being annulled by the Court of Justice, or
         on the question whether that annulment was justified. The Second Board of Appeal was called upon to rule only on the applicant’s
         appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division. Only that part of the reasoning of the contested decision which refers
         to the opposition filed by the applicant therefore constitutes the essential basis of its operative part, in which the Second
         Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 
      
      51      By contrast, the considerations concerning whether the annulment of the 2002 decision by the Court of Justice was justified
         or not, such as those set out in paragraph 30 of the contested decision, do not affect the operative part of that decision.
         Therefore, even if those considerations were vitiated by an error of law, they could not bring about the annulment of the
         contested decision. 
      
      52      In the light of all of the foregoing, the first plea in law must be rejected.
      
       The second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard
      53      The applicant claims that the Second Board of Appeal, in breach of Article 61(2) and Article 73, second sentence, of Regulation
         No 40/94, failed to give it the opportunity, before adoption of the contested decision, to submit its observations, in particular
         on the scope and interpretation of OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above.
      
      54      OHIM contests the applicant’s arguments.
      
      55      It should be noted that, under the second sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94, the decisions of OHIM may be based
         only on reasons or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments. The general
         principle of protection of the right to defend oneself is enshrined in the law of Community trade marks by that provision.
         According to that general principle of Community law, a person whose interests are appreciably affected by a decision taken
         by a public authority must be given the opportunity to make his point of view known. The right to be heard extends to all
         the matters of fact or of law which form the basis of the decision, but not to the final position which the authority intends
         to adopt (see Case T-317/05 Kustom Musical Amplification v OHIM(Shape of a guitar) [2007] ECR II‑427, paragraphs 24, 26 and 27 and the case-law cited).
      
      56      In the present case, it is common ground that, in the course of the proceedings which led to the adoption of the 2002 decision,
         the applicant had the opportunity to submit, before the Third Board of Appeal, its observations relating to all aspects of
         its opposition, including the supposedly similar character of the marks at issue. A summary of those observations is in fact
         contained in paragraph 6 of the 2002 decision. 
      
      57      Following the annulment of the 2002 decision by the Court of Justice, the case was reallocated to the Second Board of Appeal,
         which was called upon, after re-examination of the case, to rule on the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision
         of the Opposition Division, which had rejected the opposition. 
      
      58      As was pointed out during examination of the first plea in law, the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed
         the applicant’s appeal on the ground that, contrary to what was claimed by the applicant, the mark applied for and the earlier
         mark were neither identical nor similar. 
      
      59      There is no indication at all in the contested decision that the Second Board of Appeal, when it adopted that decision, relied
         on matters of law or of fact different from those available to the Third Board of Appeal when it adopted the 2002 decision
         and on which the applicant had been able to submit observations. That is made all the more evident by the fact that the Second
         Board of Appeal largely reproduced the reasoning of the 2002 decision concerning the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison
         of the signs at issue.   
      
      60      While it is, admittedly, correct that the Second Board of Appeal drew from the reasoning of the 2002 decision, reproduced
         in its own decision, a conclusion concerning the lack of similarity between the two marks at issue, which was not, as such,
         contained in the 2002 decision, the fact remains that, with regard to the final position that the Second Board of Appeal intended
         to adopt, the latter was not in any way bound, in the light of the case-law referred to in paragraph 55 above, to hear the
         applicant again before adopting its decision. 
      
      61      The applicant nevertheless claims, essentially, that the judgment in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, was a new legal issue on which it should have been heard, before the contested decision was
         adopted. 
      
      62      In that same context, the applicant maintains that there is a presumption that where a judgment annulling a measure such as
         the judgment in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, can be interpreted in a number of ways, the version most favourable to the applicant should
         be preferred. 
      
      63      In response to that argument, it must be pointed out that, under Article 43 of the Statute of the Court, if the meaning or
         scope of a judgment is in doubt, it is for the Court to construe it. Therefore, there is no presumption such as that claimed
         by the applicant and the Second Board of Appeal was not bound to hear it concerning the interpretation of OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above. If the applicant or OHIM, both parties to the proceedings before the Court of Justice, believed
         there to be a doubt as to the interpretation of that judgment, it was for them to bring the matter before the Court. 
      
      64      With regard to the question whether, before adoption of the contested decision, the Second Board of Appeal should have heard
         the applicant again concerning the application of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, following the clarification as to
         the interpretation and application of that provision given by the judgment in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, it suffices to recall that, even if the refusal of the Second Board of Appeal to take into
         consideration, in the exercise of its discretion deriving from Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, the facts and evidence
         concerning the supposedly well-known character of the earlier mark was vitiated by an error of law, such an error would have
         no bearing on the solution adopted in the contested decision. 
      
      65      Since, according to the case-law referred to in paragraph 55 above, the right to be heard under Article 73 of Regulation No
         40/94 extends, in particular, to the matters of law which form the basis of the decision, the Second Board of Appeal was not
         bound to hear the applicant on the application of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, since the facts and evidence concerning
         the well-known character of the earlier mark, relied on on the basis of that provision, were not part of the basis of the
         contested decision. 
      
      66      It follows from all the foregoing that the second plea in law must be rejected.
      
       The third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94
      67      The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. It maintains in that regard,
         first, that the Board of Appeal failed to examine the facts and arguments which it raised, including those put forward during
         the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice. The Board of Appeal also failed to take into
         account the declaration by the OHIM representative, made at the hearings both before the Court of First Instance and the Court
         of Justice in the proceedings which led to OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, that if the supposedly well-known character of the earlier mark was proved, the marks at issue
         would be sufficiently similar to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
         No 40/94.
      
      68      Second, the conclusion of the contested decision that the marks at issue were not visually or phonetically similar in any
         way, was mistaken and disregarded the case-law concerning the enhanced protection enjoyed by marks with a highly distinctive
         character.
      
      69      Third, and finally, the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently take into account the ‘function of trademark protection’ and
         the interaction between the different criteria to be taken into consideration in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
      
      70      OHIM contests the applicant’s arguments.
      
      71      As a preliminary point, the complaints of the applicant alleging that the Board of Appeal disregarded, first, the case-law
         relating to the enhanced protection enjoyed by marks with a highly distinctive character and, second, the interdependence
         of the different criteria to be taken into consideration in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, must be
         rejected as irrelevant.
      
      72      As noted in the examination of the first plea, the rejection of the opposition in this case was based on the absence of any
         similarity between the marks at issue and not on a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. 
      
      73      Should, therefore, the reasons given in the contested decision, including those of the 2002 decision which were incorporated
         in paragraph 23 of the contested decision, reveal any error of law regarding the interdependence between the various criteria
         which have to be taken into account in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, such an error could not result
         in the annulment of the contested decision, which is properly based, in law, on the finding that the mark applied for and
         the earlier mark are neither identical nor similar. 
      
      74      With regard to the complaint alleging disregard by the Board of Appeal of the ‘function of trademark protection’, it should
         be pointed out that the applicant claims in that context that, apart from its function as an indicator of the commercial origin
         and of the quality of the goods or services and as an advertising tool, a trademark also fulfils a competitive function by
         securing a competitive advantage for the proprietor.
      
      75      These arguments, even if correct, are not in any way capable of affecting the assessment as to whether the two marks are similar.
         That complaint is therefore also irrelevant.
      
      76      With regard to the complaint alleging erroneous definition of the relevant public, to be taken into account in the assessment
         of the likelihood of confusion in the present case, the applicant does not contest the conclusion of the 2002 decision, reproduced
         in the contested decision, according to which that public is made up of producers of food and confectionery products. It challenges,
         rather, the assertions, made in paragraph 34 of the 2002 decision and reproduced in paragraph 23 of the contested decision,
         that the choice, by the specialised public concerned, of one or other of the types of goods covered by the marks at issue
         ‘will only minimally be affected or influenced by the marking accompanying the products and ingredients [it] uses in [its]
         manufacturing concerns’ and, ‘[i]n this type of situation, before a finding of a likelihood of confusion can be arrived at
         there must be a high degree of similarity between the marks’.
      
      77      That is a complaint that is therefore also irrelevant. There is no need to determine what degree of similarity of the marks
         at issue would, in the present case, be enough to result in a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b)
         of Regulation No 40/94, it being sufficient to point out that the Board of Appeal concluded that those marks were not at all
         similar.
      
      78      It suffices, therefore, in order to respond to this plea in law, to examine that latter conclusion in the contested decision,
         taking into account, first, the perception of the marks at issue by the public referred to above, which was correctly identified
         by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision, and second, the applicant’s argument regarding the alleged errors committed
         by the Board of Appeal in the visual and phonetic comparison of those marks. 
      
      79      In paragraph 27 of the 2002 decision, reproduced in paragraph 23 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal first carried
         out a visual comparison of the two marks at issue. In that regard, the Board of Appeal pointed out that the fact that those
         marks both consisted of five letters was no more than a ‘likely coincidence’. In addition, it added that, although those marks
         shared the letter ‘a’ and the ending ‘ol’, they ‘clearly differ[ed]’ visually.
      
      80      The applicant contests those considerations, which it regards as empty and meaningless. In its view, the Board of Appeal,
         disregarding the case-law, failed to explain why the fact that the marks at issue had the same number of letters had no influence
         on the assessment of their similarity. 
      
      81      That argument cannot be upheld. The fact that two word marks have the same number of letters is not, as such, of any particular
         significance for the public targeted by those marks, even for a specialised public such as that in the present case. Since
         the alphabet is made up of a limited number of letters, which, moreover, are not all used with the same frequency, it is inevitable
         that many words will have the same number of letters and even share some of them, but they cannot, for that reason alone,
         be regarded as visually similar.
      
      82      In addition, the public is not, in general, aware of the exact number of letters in a word mark and, consequently, will not
         notice, in the majority of cases, that two conflicting marks have the same number of letters. 
      
      83      What matters in the assessment of the visual similarity of two word marks is, rather, the presence, in each of them, of several
         letters in the same order. Thus, the Board of Appeal rightly did not attach particular importance to the presence, in the
         two marks at issue, of the letter ‘a’, that being the first letter in the mark applied for, followed by the letters ‘rc’,
         whereas it is the second letter in the earlier mark, situated between two different letters, namely ‘c’ and ‘p’.
      
      84      By contrast, the ending ‘ol’ of the marks at issue constitutes, as the Board of Appeal accepted, a common element of the marks.
         However, since that group of letters comes at the end of those marks and is preceded, in each, by completely different groups
         of letters (respectively, ‘arc’ and ‘cap’), the Board of Appeal concluded, correctly, that that ending was not capable of
         calling into question the conclusion that those marks, considered as a whole, were not visually similar.
      
      85      That is all the more true because, as the Court of First Instance has repeatedly held, the consumer generally pays greater
         attention to the beginning of a mark than to the end (see Case T-133/05 Meric v OHIM– Arbora & Ausonia (PAM‑PIM’S BABY-PROP) [2006] ECR II-2737, paragraph 51, and l’Altra Moda, cited in paragraph 44 above, at paragraph 43). 
      
      86      With regard, next, to the phonetic comparison between the two marks at issue, in paragraph 28 of the 2002 decision, reproduced
         in paragraph 23 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal reviewed various likely pronunciations of the mark applied
         for, before concluding that the pronunciation of the marks at issue in the Member States would vary, even though those marks
         would each have two syllables. 
      
      87      Those considerations must be accepted. Contrary to what is claimed by the applicant, the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised
         for basing its decision on the ‘likely’ pronunciations of the mark applied for. Since it is an invented term which does not
         correspond to any existing word in a Community language, as long as it has not been registered and used to describe goods,
         it can only be a matter of its likely pronunciation by the public concerned. 
      
      88      Moreover, while the applicant criticises the competent OHIM bodies for not having examined the pronunciation of the two marks
         at issue in all the languages of the Member States of the Community, it did not specify the language or languages, supposedly
         ignored by the Board of Appeal, in which the two marks would be pronounced in such as way as to justify or prove a phonetic
         similarity between them. 
      
      89      The fact, also relied upon by the applicant, that the marks at issue both have the same number of syllables (two), is of no
         particular importance for the perception of the marks at issue by the public in general and, in particular, by the relevant
         specialised public and cannot, as such, lead to the conclusion that those marks are phonetically similar. 
      
      90      In those circumstances, and taking into account the fact that, whatever the exact pronunciation of the initial distinctive
         group of letters ‘arc’ in the mark applied for, it will in any case differ considerably from that of the initial group of
         letters ‘cap’ in the earlier mark, the presence, at the end of the two marks, of the group of letters ‘ol’, which is likely
         to be pronounced in the same way in both cases, does not suffice to make those marks, taken as a whole, phonetically similar.
         
      
      91      Finally, as stated in paragraph 29 of the 2002 decision, reproduced in the contested decision, neither of the two marks has
         a meaning linking it to a particular concept and, consequently, they cannot be conceptually similar. That conclusion is not,
         moreover, contested by the applicant. 
      
      92      On the basis of the foregoing findings and arguments, it must be held that the Second Board of Appeal did not infringe Article
         8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 when it found, in paragraphs 26 to 28 of the contested decision, that the marks at issue were
         not in any way identical or similar and that, therefore, that provision was not applicable, even if the goods covered by the
         marks were identical. 
      
      93      With regard to the applicant’s complaint that the Board of Appeal failed to respond to its arguments, including those put
         forward before the Community Courts in the proceedings which led to the judgment in OHIM v Kaul, cited in paragraph 13 above, the applicant has completely failed to specify the arguments supposedly ignored by the Second
         Board of Appeal. 
      
      94      In that regard, it should be pointed out that, in any case, the Second Board of Appeal, when adopting the contested decision,
         had to take into account only the arguments contained in the observations submitted by the applicant before the various OHIM
         bodies. By contrast, the arguments put forward by the applicant during the proceedings before the Community Courts were not
         addressed to OHIM and the Board of Appeal was not obliged to take them into consideration or to respond specifically to them
         in its decision. 
      
      95      With regard to the arguments put forward by the applicant before the OHIM bodies, it is evident from reading the file relating
         to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, forwarded to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 133(3) of the
         Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that, in the notice of opposition which it submitted, in its observations
         before the Opposition Division, and in the statement containing the grounds of its appeal to the Board of Appeal, the applicant
         put forward arguments concerning the relevant public, the identical or similar character of the goods covered by the marks
         at issue, the similar character of those marks and the supposedly highly distinctive character of the earlier mark. 
      
      96      Those questions and the arguments of the applicant pertaining to them were examined by the Board of Appeal in the contested
         decision. The applicant’s complaint must therefore be rejected as unfounded.   
      
      97      The applicant’s complaint relating to the disregard, by the Board of Appeal, of the position supposedly adopted by the OHIM
         representative during the proceedings before the Community Courts must also be rejected.  
      
      98      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
         question whether a sign may be registered as a Community trade mark must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation,
         as interpreted by the Community Courts, and not on the basis of a previous practice of OHIM (see Case T‑304/06 Reber v OHIM – Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Mozart) [2008] ECR II‑0000, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
      
      99      Those considerations are all the more valid as regards a declaration supposedly made by the OHIM representative before the
         Community Courts, particularly because, in the light of the independence of the President and members of the Boards of Appeal
         of OHIM, laid down in Article 131(4) of Regulation No 40/94, they are not bound by the position adopted by OHIM in a dispute
         before the Community Courts.
      
      100    Consequently, even if the OHIM representative did in fact make the declaration alleged by the applicant, the Board of Appeal
         was not bound by it and did not have to explain, in the contested decision, the grounds on which it disregarded it.
      
      101    It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the present plea is not well founded and must be rejected and that,
         in consequence, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.
      
       Costs
      102    Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay
         the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it
         must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the forms of order sought by OHIM.
      
      On those grounds,
      THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
      hereby:
      1.      Dismisses the action;
      2.      Orders Kaul GmbH to pay the costs.
      
               Vilaras
            
            
               Prek
            
            
               Ciucǎ
            
         Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 March 2009.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: English.