Hrbek v OHIM - Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd [2012] EUECJ C-42/12 (29 November 2012)

Hrbek v OHIM - Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd [2012] EUECJ C-42/12 (29 November 2012)

The appeal was dismissed because the General Court correctly applied the legal criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, conducted a global assessment of the marks, and provided adequate reasoning. The appellant's arguments either challenged factual findings,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EUECJ C-42/12
Parties
Appellant: Václav Hrbek; Defendant at First Instance: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); Intervener at First Instance: Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd (formerly The Outdoor Group Ltd)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Justice of the European Union) / Final Appellate Decision (order on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Trade Mark, Likelihood of Confusion, Relative Grounds for Refusal, Trade Mark Opposition, Distinctiveness of Trade Marks
Intellectual Property Law European Union Law Community Trade Mark Likelihood of Confusion Relative Grounds for Refusal Trade Mark Opposition Distinctiveness of Trade Marks

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Václav Hrbek

Appellant

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

Defendant at First Instance

Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd (formerly The Outdoor Group Ltd)

Intervener at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal (court of Justice of the European Union) / Final Appellate Decision (order on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in its assessment of likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
  2. 2 Whether the General Court failed to properly assess the distinctiveness and descriptive character of the word 'alpine'
  3. 3 Whether the General Court's reasoning was vitiated by contradiction or lack of reasoning regarding similarity of goods and marks

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the General Court correctly applied the legal criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, conducted a global assessment of the marks, and provided adequate reasoning. The appellant's arguments either challenged factual findings, which are not reviewable on appeal absent distortion, or were legally unfounded. The alleged lack of distinctiveness of the word 'alpine' did not preclude a finding of likelihood of confusion given the similarity of the marks and goods.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Mr Václav Hrbek is ordered to pay the costs.