Ma Fo Am (HB)

HvJ EG, 18 september 2008, C-514/06 P, Armacell Enterprise GmbH tegen OHIM / nmc SA (Nederlandse vertaling nog niet beschikbaar).

Gemeenschapsmerken. Oppositieprocedure op grond van ouder gemeenschapswoordmerk NOMAFOAM  tegen aanvraag voor gemeenschapswoordmerk ARMAFOAM. Kunststofproducten. Beroep tegen de uitspraak van het GVEA in de zaak over de uitspraak van het word foam (zie IEF 2746). Bij het Hof richt het bezwaar zicht tegen het feit dat het Gerecht in haar oordeel alleen over het niet-Engelssprekende publiek zou hebben uitgesproken. Beroep afgewezen, Gerecht was daartoe niet verplicht.

“58. Consequently, having established that the Board of Appeal’s assessment is not flawed as regards the comparison of the marks at issue from the point of view of the relevant non-English-speaking public, the Court of First Instance was fully entitled to dismiss the appellant’s action without comparing those marks from the point of view of the English-speaking public.

59. Next, the appellant’s argument that the Court of First Instance should have also ruled on the issue of the similarity of those marks from the point of view of the relevant English-speaking public, taking into account the possibility of conversion of the appellant’s Community trade mark application to a national trade mark application, must also be rejected.

60. Admittedly, as follows from Article 108(2)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the grounds for refusal of the registration of the Community trade mark determine whether that trade mark can be registered at national level.

61. However, the purpose of opposition proceedings is to provide undertakings with an opportunity to oppose, by way of a single procedure, applications for Community trade marks which might create a likelihood of confusion with their earlier marks or rights, and not to resolve in advance possible conflicts at national level.

62. As is apparent from the grounds, and in particular from paragraph 68, of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance confirmed the assessment of the Board of Appeal only in regard to the similarity of the conflicting marks as perceived by the non-English-speaking public. It follows, as OHIM has also stated, that the judgment under appeal does not prevent the appellant from requesting the conversion of the Community trade mark application to one for a national trade mark to the extent to which that application concerns English-speaking countries.

63. Lastly, contrary to what the appellant maintains, by restricting itself to ruling on the likelihood of confusion from the point of view of the relevant non-English-speaking public, the Court of First Instance did not infringe the obligation to give reasons for its judgments.

64. Paragraphs 33 and 68 of the judgment under appeal set out, to the requisite legal standard, the reasons why the Court of First Instance refrained from ruling on the issue of the similarity of the marks from the point of view of the English-speaking public.

65. In the light of the foregoing, the first part of the first plea and the second plea must be rejected as being unfounded.”

Lees het arrest hier.