Basic v OHIM (Order) [2015] EUECJ C-400/14_CO (16 July 2015)

Basic v OHIM (Order) [2015] EUECJ C-400/14_CO (16 July 2015)

The General Court correctly held that 'distribution', 'retail', and 'wholesale' services are similar where the goods concerned are identical or highly similar, and that the likelihood of confusion exists. The General Court was not required to follow previous OHIM decisions or the Nice Classification in defining the scope of services. Basic's arguments were either manifestly unfounded or inadmissible.

Citation
[2015] EUECJ C-400/14_CO
Parties
Appellant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel; Defendant at First Instance: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); Intervener at First Instance: Repsol YPF SA
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Community Trade Mark, Relative Grounds for Refusal, Likelihood of Confusion, Classification of Services
Intellectual Property Law European Union Law Trade Marks Community Trade Mark Relative Grounds for Refusal Likelihood of Confusion Classification of Services

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel

Appellant

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

Defendant at First Instance

Repsol YPF SA

Intervener at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in law in assessing the similarity and scope of 'distribution', 'retail', and 'wholesale' services for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
  2. 2 Whether previous OHIM decisions and the Nice Classification are binding or determinative in defining the scope of services

Ratio Decidendi

The General Court correctly held that 'distribution', 'retail', and 'wholesale' services are similar where the goods concerned are identical or highly similar, and that the likelihood of confusion exists. The General Court was not required to follow previous OHIM decisions or the Nice Classification in defining the scope of services. Basic's arguments were either manifestly unfounded or inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel shall pay the costs.