Vedial / OHIM

IDENTIFIER
62003CJ0106 | ECLI:EU:C:2004:611 | C-106/03
LANGUAGE
English
ORIGIN
FRA
COURT
Court of Justice
ADVOCATE GENERAL
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
AG OPINION
YES
REFERENCES MADE
8
REFERENCED
50
SECTOR
European Community (EEC/EC)
DOCUMENT TYPE
Judgment

Judgment



Case C-106/03 P

Vedial SA

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word and figurative mark HUBERT - Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 - Capacity of OHIM as defendant before the Court of First Instance)

Summary of the Judgment

Community trade mark - Review procedures - Review before the Community Courts - Procedural role of the Office - Opposition proceedings - No power to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First Instance

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 133(2); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(2))

In proceedings concerning an action against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on an opposition to registration of a Community mark based on the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, the Office does not have the power to alter before the Court of First Instance the terms of the dispute, as delimited in the respective claims and allegations of the applicant for registration and of the opposing party.

Although under Article 133(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Office is the defendant in proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the proceedings before that Court are intended to resolve a dispute between the applicant for registration and the holder of an earlier mark.

Therefore, any finding that the Office has the power to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First Instance defeats the legitimate expectation of the party which was successful before the Board of Appeal, in so far as the purpose of proceedings before the Court of First Instance is, pursuant to Article 63(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to review the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal

(see paras 26-27, 36)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 12 October 2004(1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word and figurative mark HUBERT - Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 - Capacity of OHIM as defendant before the Court of First Instance)

In Case C-106/03 P,APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged at the Court on 27 February 2003,

Vedial SA, established in Ludres (France), represented by T. van Innis, G. Glas and F. Herbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by O. Montalto and P. Geroulakos, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),,

composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur), and N. Colneric, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 July 2004,

gives the following

Judgment

  1. In its appeal Vedial SA (‘Vedial’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-110/01 (Vedial v OHIM - France Distribution (HUBERT) [2002] ECR II-5275, ‘the judgment under appeal’), dismissing its action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 March 2001 (Case R 127/2000-1) in which the opposition by Vedial to registration of the word and figurative mark HUBERT sought by France Distribution was rejected (‘the contested decision’).

Legal framework

  1. Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a){ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) provides:

‘1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered:

(b)

if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.

2. for the purposes of paragraph 1, “Earlier trade marks” means:

(a)

trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark, taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those trade marks:

(ii)

trade marks registered in a Member State ... .”

Background to the dispute

  1. On 1 April 1996, France Distribution filed with OHIM an application for registration of a composite word and figurative mark comprising the name ‘HUBERT’ in black stylised capital letters bordered with white, surmounted by a bust of a chef of jovial appearance raising his right arm with upturned thumb.

iVBORWOKGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAHGAAABiCAYAAACbKRCVAAAAAXNSROIArs4c6QAAAAIWSFIz AAAOxAAADsQBISSOGWAAABIORVhOU29mdHdhcmUATWIjcm9zb2Z01E9mZmIjZX/tNXEAACEL SURBVHhe7d1ZkFbVtQfwlyAgKDM2cQRBZFAUIKilxiEqDIHjEI1TBqtyUSWXVFJSyGNiVd5S IUpV8mAqyYNJTG7MVHEe4kgOKE4IloKIGmmRSYZGVPDu3/qyOictSDfKvflxv1PV1V9/55x9 9I7/tf5r2Huf7rd9-+/¥ PqtaxVOrgxhtv3KffXjmy1qA6]dACeC9XhhbALYD3cgnsScNrWXAL 4L1cAnv58FoW3AJ4L5fAXj68IgW3AN67JbDPPwEAD/4YO8s6P2/teCuwO6tQDcdwGlpCUhP +SXv27ZtW/X2229Xr732WjVoOKDa4IMPrvr27Vv179+/cs3eYtFNBTDBb9qOqerXr1+13377 9RIEBLe9vb168MEHq+eee64aMGBAdcghh0Sbo0ePrj796U9X00aNCpDLREz8buajqQBmVYMH D+62z+wKztatWe6vFixdXf/jDHWLcCy+8sLrkkkvCgt95553qpZdeqh599NFq0qT}1YQJE6r3 33+-vGjhwYI8VqTcpRFMBTHB1OLOCWKdV59Dwxo0bK8Ci3xdffLH69a9/Xb388sWxRdfXF12 2WXV8OHDAW8gH3HEEAX8 +fOrv//98e0LX 7iyOuGE6UONrnE1HcB163jwicCANa37777dtl2 cDdv3izdc8891dNPP93pW1EuBgDuOeecUwOdOjSaSypGzbNnz64WLbqpuv/+ewrgh1cjRozo NmPOJsvNvjQlwABcvXp19cILL8Q4Xn311WrqlKnVcccdFxbOctHw7bffXp144omFcieFlgBw 7NixARL7tOnT 1i3c6jY wREfffTRLUMPPVT9/ve/r6699tpOt9AbAdxVn309wlQPtDodv/vu u9W8efMCpBkzZhRK/XuAAGDHs88+G9Z78sknV 1//+tfDurUDUD95 + M65tGK/UfYFFLxQrV// dvWPf/wjqHvOnDkRgDVjZN2rAc600 QFCxej07rwDIAESeVvXr'6-+O00eaYsOAE4Mknn6zGjRtx XX755Z2WWOQfV5 1Qav1H9lilblqL2c-+ihhlaXXnpZ9fOf/zyedeCBB1LbnnnvuroylV57v1QBn 1Cy6veuuuyrASZMmTpxY fWrN4TV3nzzzdX48e0rww8/POgWQGPGiKmeeeaZ6pVXXqk+9alP NfVJrh-+03LPWAT7779/p68Felvb6KIkh1dLliyu3nzzzV4}Xnc6 LasB] miFCP6QH7366qtL 6v) +9cQT8wul9q+ef35hyV/7VOcdNTHGmnQrR5bXLliwiHwuvlovklisVv65cWb3++usROGEA VuuadAkKHIwB30yBmvXotQADF5jyUv7VLFNPjSjZ910mTKoOOGBWAWBrkfv2UpHaENTNvy5f vjyCLynP2WefHRZcB/ett96KAEW6hHqHDBKSINYB9tz777-+/mjt3bvWZz3ymmjlzZrPi27VT JGD985//rM4888widjKdQcV85sSJRXZAX67 +/Oc/R4Ix8uT}1W233Ra575e//OUoPIDBdQOK F+K)J6rPf/7zLemnnx7UNGXLrF 7dcccd1SOPPBJFEEqi7WYMsGhir7VgnQPUoEGDw8rSdwal M/qWCzgWaW0ycFHAwpwEML1/DKAHn/88aDtSy+9NH 743)xYrLRq3bp1Qe9f+tkKXqpNOOinu oxi7UxrtDWbfqwEG3qBBgp9GPRhwqlGAa2trqzo6OqLkeP 7550dKBAjWmMBSAODETir1i1/8 ovrsZz8b lgvceg4sXx45cmQEcix/1qxZoUAZhLUseA +060EHHVRA3V6i2PYSOY4NyOLD6WOF yqzs-+OOPDzCcF4gpRypSnHfeefE9Skbj2kP3rsulO7 vN40899tgA 1CwTZcm6dzNPOPRKC2Zx gEHNqkoqVSxQJD106LBShIRfircAv7pUpYYHRaNQ lwuu+M7nn3+++tnPfhZRUEN7ypNA1j6Q 090B6G-+/165dGxF2Fk32gN7 +rzbZKwFGnOmJABbktLevLFHtY wHAhAnjCiXPKinQYdXDDz9U LPbmmDgQNDncc9RRRWUSAxhww4YNC8tctmxZfO87 vjz9uSiaS8iypWv2hqNXAkz4KFjeK5ia MmVKWC9LXrhwYSlqjl1zGzZsKinR4shXMxBjlITIxr8pl0gFY dUpes2ZN-+G/3KUOCVWmTBrje eWCfccYZH6qENRVovRL gevGfQOWIrBi9ipaB + 9hjj1V//etfolhx8sknRSUr0x2-+0zWoG5Dy aFaNdlW5TBeaZRJMHXbYYeFrFTOKWM6xfqmSfPrb3/5206ZIVTpNysAG2MDIQ6UWChSAIQ4B dOjQIWGJLF4UbAqwb98+RSm2IULG6ALWIOqaa64ulaqpndbiXytysFefKQMfrLZtupASS}sw Rla2WIHOHuSuBJtlmSkCLKsEKVAFVNinJUn0vG3b9ur00++sVqx4tbruuqvLjNPxxec20ggo 1S0AZ3DI0xTOHbBoB/DfeOONUKQDDjhgD45uzzbdkyl6Z0MWEEmRAJx1Yhalhk0s+M13LIq0 uNDt7dX06ceWn+kBbIpgThvWixwCL+ lwZzXiltvrY 7POqdmtd5eTdE7AlkgSUfwBEWH60Kx ChR8)4rdsGFd5M7Dh5/ROZOULMCTUSKsbIEa67RE2a 7R7vz5TXfL7Yj6t+9aAO9ZIulsHbUC dNWqVQGIMITAWBn/LHAYL+w7gROwf}8+PPNfCoHeBWxmkwRguTbLPZs2bSh17gkxLdnM4Dad BWfpUMFTIIITKSOM5ukB5 prWTUqtkIShQNUJA04+TFaphCSNku72IE§BnT LvTW23QAAzXz 2aw3G4TVv+GJAr lixloATFONKFm ++I5WyThTvewwA2GSCbFuwRjnUuveGo6mCLIvIRL8KEehZ LAtowAEoOyWUzcdu2rSxBFwvFAofUgKoo4K2WbFzFgLkAgFW7I4RukKKwEy7yRTNVAC+aQDm ClmftVF8sBzV3/UFeZmzouigp37 /lutWilh4VUmInotrkYcZJbNHLBkdS4e06X5KZKIfhdvi gM4dzTon3DQAEzIA +ExLWcOYWQyAlust]evpT9a0N2zY OLINBXXLka2YBBoqIvsqbqhHs9FL ly6t7rvvvur73/9+ddFFFSVF8F90WrZuKoCTMvnUG264ofrtb38bYLA6IM 1CsyadiORKTJbK SIGX64cNG1HANBHL{/hid}3zx0BW +xaVe4Z 7rrvuus/It8kUzYB60wGcQiVOvidw5 QBwLn8F WPpmvlkqv20SXwWsYeWNgMOME6uu72CgKNp1vXO//OUvA3zMkctsm2XPUIMCrGT5u9/9Lvxw VppEw2aCAADAnO9Vahw +fEQJqsYVC-+wX6ZLihmDLPRbOZw6cDFFfx2XBnb8t1PvTn/4UIJ27 IFoW/AILAHjKir/52W9i9SRwc2oRFbM6Fqu4wTcDws/atWvK5P9N8Z1Zp9GixxRénhalzlED Gwwg+KIMLDznhZOKBVvOmeRg8dZzsthmqH!1jQUT)JhBzGk/KAwi-+FdU6BFNpwaSIOUBy3Wmn nRbSsCICFN6nDyvfN67HBLfeemvkOMqTVIK6pm 7] FhMA LapM Ln/FFVfEFGNVB 7IpAAYg6zX/ i4L9KDcCIVc81LicU6uSBktev31DUXx7 VLWBbx5WHaFw9GtBS] LaOmutTIp5HQb7zne9EhP3T n/60uuqaayKal1fXI/IPmLg +VnNNATBBsOal 7FBpFigAmIN9CbRAI/XywYlwvInw-+vVroghx 7rinh891+doFZOjRB5ZAbL8AI4Vn]O5Z2MFCA + 1rSz38yiuvjLnnH//4x+HDrcHOISEfC409 cHNTAGzcfK55X9Fz+sgMivjZ30zNL/sBblvbgcUax5eUZ2KkQ4CkKF7hQEKAqZSp7nzNNVeF BVseIMUNK/5Y47vf/W6IPn2yqNwyXUt8suTZW6tdHwvg0oXtAeWLIrMEaSKBQOsVpfSvhMtq gZWWecl]8QSWYSAGV55Y yx6R + uARCP8uDb8dr 1JCVSc42KxyRb 18bIHzdozBWCODPJ6W468 WwDXxz3illyDyqAcmXYVS/zvb6KoYO5qeQ5OKFF2FmIGXNjJdcp 1ChT2+/fwWz3wwEOF1tcV IEOhDgogOTBqzjKn40xvf/tbuADVrLPOOitq1ZQFbXc9pFqsm/9VG0/34Fouos4we0rxu9vu bgFs4AZi/bDpNTnmoEGNHX1ZKjRY gBAiq&t1x3VFABWFqW/QritLXsvqEgwBjXsaS302hUUS aO5XEnAjmuxiALZrLdmZNu2YiHr5yvq0o2e0hgGMVSpZCqYArN3cVprRsva4Cv6ZItSPDP4+ yTnkj8sI3QY4I7r4vxDhorL68)UigAFBb3PnPI4A3Kcl8IhYe05Q62U 7k/R35JFHdgIDUMX8 +fOfKkrwbpnKmxlzP8B1f04iZBC1dOnLxT +-+HsrkuywOUDKHHDX3FLmXjzWBYBHdOeecXfzk 8M4tLK6jJAmc+1mtmvSS]UuCpviIVB2Xw]gE7HEXdllf1WoTPV +darWSj7rASBamz3s4A 1BY] obgUbXePbgPMGhtF g7UISHilaPnkoKdcv7xx46Zi0W +EZbkG7X3uc58LsBQHaLwVkQQpnlyw YFFpY LqsfBQ4bdw4OEBRMfluDQB4noGy1CuvvCJSpEWLFsWUnvOAcY5SuAdwrFQglctfBVaC p460zeW518N606 +610EJ9RV95 35illiUAFqtb32r+sY 3vhFpOUsvLY0c2eYOR64R8zmtPNkm Lbnu1/M 1Entt9mFHzOW+jwOuPnUb4KwSoaf)kycG/d50002dflHe6LUJChFARF+AePDBR4sl Dim9Ra4Rido3d0aZZxVhVOW9994XvnLWYEtZ26pTTiml-+stf/hLAeQWDtISysBa+1TNyF78p P5UnLoBysE79BEC +zMz6qqeeeqoEVYeWe4/orHShA/fIkQGhTb6ZolHqO5E7i/bj+jvuuLOw OoLSRsMdcVGUU/9SOUXv2ql0aRQUMbLWLV7 7uceKpVLKOphdaT6Vpu7iumPV3QY46YdfQosP P/xwTMERIsE6z3cZCEGhT69dsAvf2mXn7eqzWUz}D6ii2Itv/e8A0+CmTZterrkkghfAURT7 dM3qOEwY +PnKV74SfwNHGyybsAkp6U+/UKy +nHnm6ZOL4bPSpWq1bt3a8rMhUqr99x/UWbDI Aoq2WLa0CQu1t78Zw)tf50L0GSie4 1qyYaH64bUPgHVeEcW LIncStWuwHOXIKhxWoQDplpld yJECKO9OrHQF +60A 7jbAKVC/dY5gCZH2GYTBOH)pCY 33Xg0IPZErgjcvfyX8rtSFidjuOwfy /Ri5laRPn30CXLTL2kOq5BJZPp1bWAR2C/KFwCBQAISKHHWWOQRNVIsed9z04i40iH6 7hrDW rVsffpeiZHqV902ZDuNwTd + +jTf1T]O6uTDYpM65aPexYNcYD5fUWCP2QWm30+TgR4bbIDNK tWXLO/FmAsDIJAcZOK9JPLee610A30Xoe4rm XuPqznrtbgFMIB6O6iJY MqicvQEKgAU3+f4p 90ce/IZB32fronRu2rRpQYOiXYf0 Ovijj55cBP1+BE201neokCLpQy7NcR9/znJRcZYqXUMg uTVRs332XkrbWMWwEUTI2XfE3bCujPwT 3FzpkX2QPmUxxY pL04bGx5XkDgvguw+4BA8M982b 91hMO6pxixgxqrDXbZGy2SwHVFaffTZezzFmixAoi75qLicye46YAgv4fle18G4BDATACFxQ Ftqk9QRDu5xDzwSuQ4CgrRRAhymDDgGDFfOrllEAgeM72sw6CYb1u0+1eUZjo9mGUBCUCxT3 ASAwCNmRcYLPnkWpcseCFEiuqw7tsLe}dWYUm4v29B1QuWiPkCkVNSQRLUV9yU9 + Ojijicim B33BT}4DQDsUwViuv/76EtmfX5R7ebCd7a0UzzWCxrpiCSDdn0ZkLAZBnmeMIBZFX8Gylére JcA0xOB0O/9BQ30G]FBY 06xZpxaaHhj-+-bPz4sfFSFCDkbA9asZYKOllwgilkwsyd9sDKRe0G wacCMX2Ra5UHCUPqQpD5pjrkxb/z2WhbxE4ZBXIZICAQETh698MKWEy6GGOB)t9mm2khAVNE h/6rXGnbdSJu54GJGdLKKaRxASXTOsoEUBG5+rVsAYvipintuC9fPY Hy8xWNaaVclpUmGeNk PWC3fbCGCcbLwFgWkAwk37HMig] +5swZRfB9i4Y p2g8oguVb +8V3zIMGfsh9/C+FQXG-+xwAG x+JSMPJQ2zIzzTMtz9cQApogRdMUR7 + 0nSVMObv7K] 6pvfSLWdzwLJ+xCBrUj1zWs99+g0q7 I60t9IMUjbI6SMLUEQtol/vCooYOHR6W3r9/v4i+teteMuRIKLW/WbIg1]VsHWGiyT6ZEYooE zpgpSAaPFEp80i0W7ve00qs64Du14Mw/DcYKOjlzzisBwualg) 3LPbeEoSM603XqIHjo6683 8k6dRq20I}Xxm7Q3/¥70564DWVIWVLSRCOWBnQUQJOFVOWi+HI2ma1dUL4810+N6z3QtK83C hX7nLkVuwLs9brnilnA3j¥r¥/mUu+Jzicq¥GC7heX3NxgTZzVomIGbdnaY fAcyUJi6bM +iTa zt0XzvteVE6B8s162s09yxRef/QzCzs+ux64m415/M-+ynqd2ynAqTmEPnv2rEJvC80Sc9sI rUepOiOvzd1 6tG/pOpc652yBJarW8UbANTCCj4wECdbRyG8buSIKZNOEQns9x3n38j0shnBz Kwoqz6g50znxAOtA9wSZ7kD7K 1a8Ft9lcKZPDWVcX37eDqVUPVO8aWsbGZbrvLf08OX8uP70 57333htKn8onm OlqgOge7gwLGi/AKKRXTKDqtL7GGwzag7Zzz5VnomPjoMxYSt7vb2 LI8WRX ZdEdApycn5rNAlg]YRsicAFHM9EPDW9Uizo6c 1qdz9kawnCe73AVv35i1ZMKcOnVaobdRhb4W lih9QmgzTc+SJAFgAHm 3ayZNmhLrnQVy6Ts9C33mm 3bk4BR]3zMFI3gOSjicSw1énu/wN/AY 022TJh1VFErK8n4JKueWMS4L2teW8Y qCWRWXZazA 1z6GysP 3FD5dEDBcT1H1VUyQb5zv6NgS QF}m37nOuBV7yMxz/RZ/iAO6W6PeqQWzDgPxm 9bwKXweQaY 1AIFTEOLJ +q6BSbMOVocBilak RyiLAmVkrKOnnH] yvF3dPbSdZbjXc+qISKCpW48cOS}2LBAAVmCpAOK3LXNIJXwsMBu+sjFF KIZg0a7hCzPKdo41a807sqSD/)379WHOnHNCmeTe/DF6dK +Azn0ZCbNeyuwAKgCdR600wLJM TYrov/e974VIXnfd9cUlvRrG40c/FHeMAZhY41c//GHIOelCysH4Mk3arSCLgNHP1772tQDF Q9Pn+ExwOkq4wKVhvsvCBeH TeAMAYi5XpSwZKeoksEeNGhI9POaYKfEaX8qUsO8EielVJdyH +hYvfrEowf]OpXCviN2sUJ¥cCTNfEn7YYWOjdDpt2tFBu8amH7keOqchkYtxsHxLe4wHm 3A/ 3/zmN8NqzVIBgeXnRiVKYG-+xGoEDuwmiLLDPVFE7jqyKsXhZCYsfO/bw0p/G24DS91NEFT1K b1w/+MEPQoZATRnvbHKjDvhHpkIZK80VhG 7UOECzI/5m2ejJ QPno3IMLEFZLGNpAO4TnIDTC pADDhg0t2r6kCGh8GZDI2BxsYyM262IxK Le +WRRhdCjDPffcW565PI5iqg1Wwy-+ic}pPEO7F BvyWSQKCFIFnBE8hkkKT7gDjumQi42eBGQsYM3CIWdZIGbfASSusWPvG729G4TtGkM9RS5fq Oce6Gy86nRBjx}aZmmXpFsgU LfNTecgur/soy81zOwWYdktpMvj FC6hTZ2muwVt9qPhgoAAE nISAYHWCMFCd63NhOgOkAD8GgrKU9datW 1MGcmSjetWUWXafUBhW2CiebCyU1RgwugRGVsAo gBKoQ9Tv+UBigXx/Y 1Lg/VCwF19cFMySNMt69dUzMEoWGwg1MwXC}Q+MhsWw1gMPPBAASAIf 36mYJbulG8uUjaWqoTtPTkCVSnpVoz5yK75LZdM/zxeviPjT2HYVVHUFfacA6zhwDMQEQWph RqfoyYvFPJAADBbt6lgg]V905jPFoAAEnTItLixZhYFdeOEFkdKwgq1b3+ncgS+STOpk9WvxX rgv2cHhWRtgAYR3Y Qp/RI30eiS5RoxxVns5 9UEpjOUaWYilkVt4A7 LSAWTKrfXLnvayNDOeh INcSCqC9TOVOD+ gsWvrGd30uH8 +nYgrtTp9-+XNindUs8R83eC97IFPPpméjdOuyuixS6Y72u +-cggS8dFrzopjEdr +R4MABMCnyQPzAlzwOkMSyBwnSUosOCAcT6 1Ef2loOTBfBZNtmaZOF 1P ez0zS3YsVHsEmf4RTTpY 7RFHTIj/mrjmTePtd5n3ei72uOaaa8ikK5b+emTGEEIB3QZH1GXCe yO8amypUuhQ5OmXLMiplyX3LnkMuAHfinDnnxm5Gkwy/+tWvljfOMqoxUOZXXxVPvB/rxtyf RRJINKbcVtNdULvigwOcFalW+W/uAyLoug9F]egbMPnG1xQ2wRMU6nPk220ljOnNZ2UMM+9N SkZIOeWXryOU04rGCaOxSGBj+F5Mk0d7 + xulH6s69w4DiyBz4zfXgKLORVHAYN2pjOiS39R3 YBsvYLDCF7/4xVAa/pey6lcfSuRaBsASsQhrveili4sITiIKPK9Mi94Vz3WebCkXK6WwFDVr 334bD30m/5xe3B Lwd2jBGZISEGHSwnwLTb5}va 1tTAh/8eKXSiePDS2TWmR9GjgOPCsOHOR+ UTOap5m5NhIQOTme/sXfBCFtOPjgg0JgQ4YMjXxQHmxAKRSDELHUSmnaXLVsa4LpG2/qgL/gqe uxBdB/CcO/YstK vNZAZSiaRFABO16sDystIGCLFkbVIOzyAjvymN/gAHnSsOqe49+eQLBeTn I4bQjSwowU7y2nzicc4cUTIMYEz5n2R66nt3GmSITzlleZeHOOoMRvw9Y8bMziWaqtK2xjGdZ Z7pEgP5TSRbS +S3aK92htXxyrqGqz6L4nOuWuQA +SrsLFy4usyhzisXxgrPC3p2pAgtg4tat HxghixuE7KO7WCirzTkTxTIoCOFSvj/+8Y/BMHWw +5XYvK5OHmj1TiBKWYN-+St74cz6}OQNBn isiK7ZnS/4xXBKinnXZqiS9MU 75d4osFna-+PUI2jF]6TuylALAPQD + yUhZndtd4PWTAtyeUx rACYOiL/Awp/SUNnzToxBmK3gHTGQHWIsHSSpdC8115 7PfqG/uzMU6gQ7QLa37kowD20nnX4 PXPmSWXT9eXhCzdt2Ixoqq2AtzrY 4olLzg8wgOk5+purJ3P6kRWyknHjxhdFOz8A0X +Wlad0 nhCNz3hy0QDFpMyu99nGb6/Ody2IcZ2ADYASP8sKvYZYO4In1TFuS9 +M55FHHo0Obfbsk4qS r4i+Y/Zh89+ y}plp +vCPvrPeHKyf3dB/o8gCz1nlo1CaRCqotUGkrMp6YfWrFkdkwI6YIFa ItPcRWgLF)xblsjjw1JUkX700x/FIPznMYUDg5MTZiTqH2widMaNOyysINWzZH2RWaqhxy2s9 01qu7dsb79ugCIRG6fgtviVgwz9rx60Q/RHNChqSE8WUnIHKSQ5KmspBDixfFAsoiwWAmitF gUIR9AOgfgSb2CTnygVh8+Y9UQAFGyVY 1 LIwPh47qKhpnOK4] ydVLJBob38rvu9OMeOjwP9Q FK1TOcsjD9ZhFEbwuSwHrdBASPXMM88Xy7Wnp7F/B1gEVXHihtiiafulgwXkxi3TeKgThYte c1203}cwvcSMhUpDuAmDNMUmxUDxFrUPHz4yih1btnRO1sBdL +CjkKgOHXdOrAmFykK/IE6x 3wRBbi8FHLOEd]YvKTM/Kw/irlm7MaD2zZs7wrlov2tyQkBdwEoRDJOBF1fn3+RNMmPBfwV6U 1tiNUOqoP8ZP4RIGDMN212HDhgQL7K7v3aUPTpCzIpviSBPUUAROELQy35B063P7yLjD26ph I8aU5zRei-+8gF FOOCHStb6eTNhAWING8gQEp9/865zmCN)SM vayNAiY LTorNolqSCpp8i3ny LbVerol1Gv936avRFsvPmnVOHgABWO}YAjv5Ptawxvrqq6+N7 Letao8+snKMMHduY620qhoG 8ZxGGtUVvXJE6OWAZBcNhJNwGcLO4QpHIVSBq/ZjvuQoyIbvdseb/sGBAEAowM 7HOJBSANFwn cm1vpkP5IrLsAGrpVwbnNQI1DFTZgPhg 1widctWC5/JKDSXorgnV30ANOeYfZ/TZnItAgU4 FJhTdvrpnHo0q0aL/s6Zsdzz5DruhwKuWrU6 1n+foMKMWM4r2LvrrrsinrBDEYDKpitXtheF a8QHWSHit70kjleLGLNyLLISToqGhcxdK 1k2ZG1BwcygaoxAEfl/pziqSrM 7/vhDPtgA65pS B8j30YdZ/740eF]DGO2/LLful 71UI2ubUaljn5m/uLITSXLOT27VzGINz8/dENrK2nm9LZ8x Ap+e9WGCz3TE83)xGWUxuzV79sIhkYBCveg2J9/9VrxAtcceO 7UwxfhiqUsiBgDUKIXLiqt5 lywSGwhWKQUX4xp 1czECa8aAGSAK 1HLpsb7pKytmCB8b4Lqgd+a4d+QTeuonuirHv5Wisd93 ROdX40tKmMDnvck+XdIDu/kah/ozuipZYwit4z1 bqdRYB91rM3+04TOlxylsv1GgGRbbUFVI +/ZtBWx7nx40LuWQYBHAATLJ+dHiqCaRc +3bu2I2AbtZ 1aRibbs485w2dn3u1x019MGe3p9 TSWj04q3qzVz78y2uvédlj8ApuLXv+/aD8/MaNpnigdspUIz1xY pSKewCKawIBZojQV73tz3 bsQKAwcOCMVyTnzAerkylJ2M1RMZ/58D3}POMLX7koBdvSc7tzTITFYYdkw5UjWj2eMkys1 /71Qwr/Rbfzr2 3RjAKY QWcbtTh +69v3/)cCfIKLsqhOWIStNEjig1 5nh325xx++IRV85AbKr 5+30fAvg3ZFaD + 7panU7SnU +yjJ3x2rr3WsB3AOwmVHSFSDNiFoP +twCuAfCasZLWWA3I209 6HML4B4lqxkvbQHcjKjLoMB8tgHsgrGa8tAVwM6LWgz63A06Bs)rx0hbAzYhaD/rcArgHwmrG S1sANyNqPehzC-+AeCKsZL+134403/utf]zdj91t9 3pUE/gf7fhLIDIERGAAAAABJRUSErk}g gg==

  1. The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Classes 29, 30 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.

  1. On 6 January 1998, Vedial filed a notice of opposition under Article 42 of Regulation No 40/94 against the mark applied for in respect of some of the products covered by the mark, namely, ‘milk and milk products’ in Class 29 and ‘vinegar, sauces’ in Class 30

  1. The earlier mark is the national word mark SAINT-HUBERT 41 for ‘butters, edible fats, cheeses and all dairy products’ in Class 29. It is composed of two words connected by a hyphen and including the number 41.

  1. Upon rejection of its opposition by a decision of 1 December 1999 by the Opposition Division, Vedial filed an appeal with OHIM against the decision of the Opposition Division pursuant to Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94. In support of its appeal, the applicant annexed to its statement of grounds several documents intended to establish the reputation of its mark in France.

  1. That appeal was dismissed by the contested decision. The First Board of Appeal of OHIM essentially considered that, even though there was a high degree of similarity between the goods in question and even though, for the purposes of the application of that provision, it was possible to take account of the reputation of the earlier mark demonstrated to it by Vedial, there was no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public concerned since the conflicting marks did not display strong similarities.

Procedure before the Court of First Instance and judgment under appeal

  1. By an application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 May 2001, Vedial brought an action for the annulment of the contested decision on the sole ground of infringement of the concept of likelihood of confusion for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94

  1. Before the Court of First Instance, OHIM acknowledged that if it were legitimate to regard the earlier mark as reputed, it would be appropriate to conclude that there was a likelihood of confusion with the mark applied for. None the less, since it was not possible, in OHIM's view, to accept the reputation of the earlier mark owing to the appellant's failure to provide evidence of such reputation within the period granted for that purpose by the Opposition Division, it was appropriate to examine the case without the adjunction of that factual element.

  1. In that regard OHIM considered that, if the Court of First Instance were to find that the dominant component of the earlier mark is the Christian name ‘HUBERT’, it would be difficult to deny the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question. Conversely, if the Court of First Instance were to hold that the earlier mark is not particularly distinctive and forms a whole in which no component is dominant, the differences between the marks should be sufficient to demonstrate that there is no likelihood of confusion. OHIM leaves it to the discretion of the Court of First Instance to resolve that point of law brought before it.

  1. France Distribution, which was a lawfully constituted party to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, did not intervene in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

  1. The Court of First Instance first recalled, at paragraphs 35 to 39 of the judgment under appeal, the Court's case-law concerning likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark.

  1. The Court of First Instance then went on, at paragraphs 40 to 59 of the judgment under appeal, to compare on the one hand the goods concerned and on the other the conflicting signs. Thus it found that the ‘dairy products’ and ‘edible fats’ in respect of which the earlier mark had been registered were identical, respectively, with ‘milk and milk products’ and similar to ‘vinegar, sauces’ covered by the trade mark application in question. On the other hand, it considered that the earlier mark and the mark applied for ‘are not similar visually’, that they are ‘dissimilar from an aural point of view’ and that there ‘is no conceptual similarity between the conflicting marks’,

  1. Finally, at paragraphs 60 to 66 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance adjudged there to be no risk of confusion between the earlier mark and the mark applied for. It held in particular at paragraph 63 that ‘even though there is identity and similarity between the goods covered by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual differences between the signs constitute sufficient grounds for holding that there is no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the targeted public’. At paragraphs 65 and 66, it went on to state that, ‘in this case, the conflicting signs cannot in any way be regarded as identical or similar from the visual, aural or conceptual points of view’ and that, consequently, ‘one of the essential conditions for applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 has not been satisfied’

  1. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the contested decision.

The appeal

  1. In its appeal, in support of which it raises three pleas, Vedial claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

give final judgment on the dispute by granting the forms of order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First Instance;

order OHIM to pay the costs.

  1. OHIM contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order Vedial to pay the costs.

First plea

Parties’ arguments

  1. In its first plea Vedial submits that in the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance infringed the general principle of Community law under which the parties delimit the subject-matter of a case, which was upheld by the Court in its judgment in Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel and Van Veen [1995] ECR I-4705).

  1. It states that, under that principle it is for the parties alone to determine the scope of the dispute. It precludes the court from raising an issue not referred to in the parties’ submissions. Thus, where on a given point there is no dispute between the parties or where they expressly acknowledge the existence of a legal, relevant and specific fact, the court cannot act of its own motion except if the agreement between the parties on the specific point is contrary to public policy.

  1. In the present case, during the procedure before the Court of First Instance, Vedial and OHIM were agreed as to a similarity, if only a phonetic one, between the earlier mark and the mark applied for, and as to a risk of confusion if it were not possible to criticise the Board of Appeal for taking the view that the earlier mark was very distinctive, if only owing to the reputation gained by it in France. According to Vedial, that delimitation of the dispute was not contrary to public policy.

  1. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance, it is claimed, infringed the principle under which the parties delimit the subject-matter of a case by considering, contrary to the agreement between the parties on that point, that the conflicting marks displayed no similarities.

  1. OHIM contends that the first plea is unfounded. The abovementioned principle applies in civil law but not to the predominantly administrative law disputes concerning the Community trade mark. Moreover, OHIM has no locus standi of its own, since it was not a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. When an action comes before the Court of First Instance it must determine whether OHIM, that is to say the Board of Appeal, correctly applied Regulation No 40/94 and, if it concludes that OHIM infringed that regulation, it must set the decision aside.

  1. OHIM points out that in its action before the Court of First Instance Vedial maintained that the contested decision infringed the concept of likelihood of confusion and expressly requested the Court of First Instance to examine the conflicting marks and to determine that there was a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was right to examine that concept and to apply Regulation No 40/94. It cannot therefore be said to have infringed the principle under which the parties delimit the subject-matter of a case

  1. Moreover, OHIM contends that in the present case there was no agreement between Vedial and itself. In its view, apart from the fact that the view of OHIM is expressed in the view taken by the Board of Appeal, as was adjudged by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal, France Distribution, which could have acted as an intervener before the Court of First Instance, in no way assented to Vedial's interpretation of the likelihood of confusion. However, in disputes relating to industrial and commercial property the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance confer on the intervener a position which is almost identical to that of the other parties.

Findings of the Court

  1. Even on the supposition that the principle under which the parties delimit the subject-matter of a case applies in proceedings such as those at first instance concerning an action against a decision of an appeal board of OHIM on an opposition to registration of a mark based on the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, OHIM does not in any event have the power to alter before the Court of First Instance the terms of the dispute, as delimited in the respective claims and allegations of the applicant for registration and of the opposing party.

  1. In fact, although under Article 133(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, OHIM is the defendant in proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the proceedings before that Court are intended to resolve a dispute between the claimant for registration and the holder of an earlier mark, as is borne out by the following provisions in Regulation No 40/94 and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

  1. First, under Article 63(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94, that action seeks to examine the lawfulness of the decision of the Board of Appeal which decided the dispute concerning registration of the mark applied for and to obtain, in an appropriate case, the annulment or alteration of that decision.

  1. Yet before both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, the dispute is between the applicant for registration and the party opposing it, without OHIM being a party to the dispute

  1. It is important to note, in particular, that under Article 42(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94, only owners of earlier marks may oppose registration of a mark on the relative ground of refusal provided for in Article 8(1)(b) thereof. Thus, OHIM does not have the power to oppose registration of a mark on such a ground.

  1. Nor, secondly, is the action before the Court of First Instance against the decision of a Board of Appeal on an opposition open to OHIM. In fact, under Article 63(4) of Regulation No 40/94 such an action ‘shall be open to any party to proceedings before the Board of Appeal adversely affected by its decision’

  1. Thirdly, the capacity of defendant conferred on OHIM is limited in its effects. Conversely, the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, other than the applicant, entitled, under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to participate in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance as interveners, are accorded in that connection extensive rights such as to assimilate them to actual defendants.

  1. Thus, Article 134(2) of the Rules of Procedure states that: ‘The interveners referred to in paragraph 1 shall have the same procedural rights as the main parties.’

  1. Moreover, contrary to the ordinary rule in regard to intervention set out in Article 116(4)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, Article 134(3) thereof provides that ‘[aln intervener ... may, in his response ..., seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application’. By dint of a contrario reasoning under the latter provision OHIM is not entitled, for its part, to formulate such forms of order.

  1. Finally it is clear from Article 134(4) thereof that, in derogation from Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, even if OHIM does not respond to the application in the manner and within the period prescribed, the default procedure is not to apply where a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal other than the applicant intervenes before the Court of First Instance.

  1. Therefore OHIM cannot be granted power, by partially concurring with the analysis put forward by the applicant, or acquiescing in its appeal, to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First Instance. Any other finding would defeat the legitimate expectation of the party which was successful before the Board of Appeal, in so far as the purpose of proceedings before the Court of First Instance is, pursuant to Article 63(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to review the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal.

  1. In this case the Court of First Instance was in no way bound by the agreement between Vedial and OHIM as to the similarity or even the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks. The Court was therefore correct to consider, in the judgment under appeal, whether the contested decision infringed the concept of likelihood of confusion, as Vedial alleged in its application, and to apply Regulation No 40/94

  1. The first ground of appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Second ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

  1. In its second ground of appeal Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance infringed the rights of the defence by failing to act in accordance with its legitimate expectation as to the parameters of the dispute agreed by the parties. Having regard to the position adopted by OHIM in its response submitted to the Court of First Instance, it withdrew its request to be permitted to submit a response and limited its arguments to the parameters defined by OHIM's statement of its position.

  1. According to Vedial, even if the Court of First Instance was not bound by the principle under which the parties delimit the scope of the case, it should have ordered that the matter be reopened and notified the parties that it did not concur with their view as to the aural similarity of the conflicting marks.

  1. OHIM considers that the second ground of appeal presupposes that the Court of First Instance infringed the abovementioned principle, which in its view it did not. It adds that, both in its application and at the hearing, Vedial set out its views at length, as well as explaining its interpretation of the regulatory provisions and relevant case-law.

Findings of the Court

  1. As regards the second ground of appeal, even on the assumption that Vedial and OHIM were agreed that there was some similarity between the conflicting marks or even that there was a likelihood of confusion, it must be borne in mind first of all that, as analysis of the first ground of appeal makes clear, the Court of First Instance was in no way bound by that view, but had a duty to determine whether, by finding that there was no similarity between the two marks, the Board of Appeal had infringed Regulation No 40/94 in the contested decision. Secondly, the Court of First Instance did not base its decision on facts or arguments extraneous to the issue.

  1. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance in no way failed to act in accordance with the legitimate expectations of Vedial, nor was it bound to reopen the matter in order to notify it that it did not agree that there was aural similarity between the earlier mark and the mark applied for.

  1. The second ground of appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Third ground of appeal

Arguments of the parties

  1. In its third ground of appeal, which was submitted in the alternative, Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance infringed the concept of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

  1. By the first limb of this plea, Vedial claims that the Court of First Instance erred in finding, at paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that there was no likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the mark applied for without establishing, as it should have done, whether there was a risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question originate from undertakings which are linked economically only.

  1. By the second limb of the same plea, Vedial alleges that the Court of First Instance was wrong to find, at paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, that the visual, aural and conceptual differences between the earlier mark and the mark applied for constituted sufficient grounds to discount any likelihood of confusion. According to Vedial, the question is not whether there are differences between the conflicting marks, but whether those marks are identical or similar and whether, taken together with the identity or similarity of the goods or services concerned, the extent of those similarities is such that there is a likelihood of confusion

  1. By the third limb of this plea, Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance did not apply the rule of interdependence in a clear manner. It erred in failing to state that the alleged slight degree of similarity between the earlier mark and the mark applied for was counteracted by the high degree of similarity between the goods concerned and by the strong distinctiveness of the earlier mark.

  1. By the final limb of the third plea Vedial argues that the Court of First Instance was wrong, at paragraph 62 of the contested decision, to restrict the relevant persons to the ‘target public’, which is to say purely to consumers likely to purchase the marked goods. In Vedial's submission, the relevant public for the purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion is composed of all persons likely to come across the mark.

  1. OHIM argues that the third ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded in regard to all limbs.

Findings of the Court

  1. For the purposes of applying Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the mark applied for and the earlier mark are identical or similar, and that the goods or services covered in the application for registration are identical or similar to those in respect of which the earlier mark is registered. Those conditions are cumulative (see to that effect, on the identical provisions of Article 4(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), Case C-39/97 Canon [1998] ECR I-5507, paragraph 22).

  1. Contrary to Vedial’s claim, the Court of First Instance did not rely on the visual, aural and conceptual differences between the earlier mark and the mark applied for in deciding that there was no likelihood of confusion.

  1. After making a comparative study, at paragraphs 48 to 59 of the judgment under appeal, of the two marks in the visual, aural and conceptual senses, the Court of First Instance concluded, as stated at paragraph 65 of the judgment, that the marks could in no way be regarded as identical or similar for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94

  1. Having found that there was no similarity between the earlier mark and the mark applied for, the Court of First Instance correctly concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion, whatever the reputation of the earlier mark and regardless of the degree of identity or similarity of the goods or services concerned.

  1. The third ground of appeal is therefore unfounded in regard to each of its limbs and must be dismissed.

  1. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

  1. Under Article 62(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party's pleadings. Since OHIM sought such an order and Vedial has failed in its appeal it must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

Dismisses the appeal;

Orders Vedial SA to pay the costs.

Signatures.

  1. -

Language of the case: French.


Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.