Oppositie CB terecht afgewezen

Gerecht EU 9 november 2022, IEF 21077, IEFbe 3570; ECLI:EU:T:2022:698 (CB tegen EUIPO) CB is het nationale interbancaire netwerk van Frankrijk. CCB is een van de vier grootste banken van China. Op 14 oktober heeft zij een aanvraag tot inschrijving van een EU-merk ingediend, CB heeft hiertegen op 7 mei 2015 oppositie ingesteld. De oppositie is door het EUIPO afgewezen. CB vordert vernietiging van deze beslissing van EUIPO. Het Gerecht verwerpt het beroep. Het uit de stilering voortvloeiende beeldelement binnen het merk van CB moet als dominant worden beschouwd, niet de letters 'C' en 'B'. Er is geen sprake van overeenstemming tussen de twee beeldmerken, er is ook geen sprake van verwarringsgevaar. Tot slot is ook geen sprake van ongerechtvaardigd voordeel trekken uit de reputatie van het merk van CB.

102. It is in the light of the foregoing considerations that it is necessary to examine whether the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the signs at issue carried out by the Board of Appeal is vitiated by any errors of assessment.

106. As regards the visual comparison, it must be stated that, in so far as, having regard to their intrinsic qualities, the earlier marks consist of a figurative element composed of two rounded shapes, whereas the mark applied for consists of a word element, ‘ccb’, and a figurative element decorating the latter, the Board of Appeal was entitled to conclude that there was no visual similarity between the mark applied for and the earlier marks (see, by analogy, judgment of 1 September 2021, GT RACING, T‑463/20, not published, EU:T:2021:530, paragraphs 69 and 71).

107. As regards the phonetic comparison, it must be observed that, in so far as, in the present case, it has not been shown that a significant part of the relevant public would identify the letters ‘c’ and ‘b’ within the earlier marks, no constituent element of those marks is capable of being pronounced. Owing to the impossibility of pronouncing the earlier marks, the Board of Appeal was also entitled to find that the signs at issue could not be compared phonetically (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 March 2021, Representation of a fish, T‑354/20, not published, EU:T:2021:156, paragraph 68).

108. As regards the conceptual comparison, it is necessary to uphold the assessment set out in paragraph 59 of the contested decision, which is not disputed by the applicant, that such a comparison was not possible.

109. In the light of all of the foregoing, given that the Board of Appeal was entitled to find that the signs at issue were visually dissimilar and that it was not possible to carry out a phonetic and conceptual comparison, as is apparent from paragraphs 106, 107 and 108 above, the Board of Appeal also acted correctly in finding, in paragraph 60 of the contested decision, that the signs at issue were dissimilar.

113. In the present case, since, as is apparent from paragraph 58 above, the similarity of the marks is one of the cumulative conditions for the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and since it has been held, in paragraph 109 above, that no similarity between the marks at issue could be established, the Board of Appeal was correct to find that there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that article, irrespective of the identity of the services at issue and even assuming that the earlier marks were highly distinctive (see, by analogy, judgment of 24 March 2021, Representation of a fish, T‑354/20, not published, EU:T:2021:156, paragraph 70).

114. In the light of the foregoing, the applicant’s second plea in law must be rejected.

119. In order for an earlier trade mark to be afforded the broader protection under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, the following three conditions must, therefore, be satisfied: (i) the marks at issue must be identical or similar; (ii) the earlier mark cited in opposition must have a reputation; and (iii) there must be a risk that the use without due cause of the trade mark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. Those three conditions are cumulative and failure to satisfy one of them is sufficient to render that provision inapplicable (see judgment of 9 March 2012, Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM – HFP (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS), T‑32/10, EU:T:2012:118, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).

120. The identity or similarity of the marks at issue is therefore a necessary condition for the application of that provision.

121. In addition, it is not apparent either from the wording of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 or of Article 8(5) of that regulation or from the case-law that the similarity between the marks at issue must be assessed in a different way, according to whether the assessment is carried out under Article 8(1)(b) or under Article 8(5) (judgment of 24 March 2011, Ferrero v OHIM, C‑552/09 P, EU:C:2011:177, paragraph 54).

122. In the present case, it is sufficient to recall that it is apparent from the examination of the second plea in law that the marks at issue are dissimilar.

123. Therefore, since the first of the cumulative conditions for the application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 is not met, the Board of Appeal was correct to reject the opposition brought by the applicant on the basis of that provision.

124. In the light of all of the foregoing, the third plea in law must be rejected and the action must be dismissed in its entirety.