EU-oppositieprocedure o.g.v. ouder algemeen bekend Spaans woordmerk “BIMBO” (in de zin van artikel 6bis Unieverdrag van Parijs) tegen het beeldmerk (in het zwart, rood, goud en wit) met woordelementen “CAFFÈ KIMBO” voor o.a. graanpreparaten, brood, banketbakkers- en suikerbakkerswaren. Het BHIM wees de oppositie gedeeltelijk toe (enkel voor de zojuist genoemde waren) en het Gerecht bevestigt deze beslissing. Er is sprake van verwarringsgevaar: soortgelijke waren en overeenstemmende tekens.
43 It follows from the foregoing that the Board of Appeal did not infringe Article 64(1) or Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in examining the items of evidence provided by the applicant to substantiate the existence and extent of the well-known trade mark relied upon as the basis of the opposition and in subsequently making a comparison of the goods, having regard to all the goods in respect of which the opposition had initially been upheld.
44 Moreover, the examination of the contested decision shows that the Board of Appeal set out there, in points 13 to 23, the grounds on which it considered, in the light of the various items of evidence provided by the applicant, the well-known character of the earlier mark to have been demonstrated only for ‘packaged sliced bread’ and, in points 25 to 31, the grounds on which it considered, on account of their intrinsic characteristics, that the various goods examined were identical (comparison of ‘packaged sliced bread’ and ‘preparations made from cereals and bread’), similar (comparison of ‘packaged sliced bread’ and ‘pastry’) or different (comparison of ‘packaged sliced bread’ and ‘flour’, ‘yeast and baking powder’, ‘confectionary’ and ‘ices’).
59 In conclusion, it is apparent from the foregoing that, contrary to the applicant’s contention, the Board of Appeal did not infringe Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in holding, on the basis of an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion several aspects of which are not disputed by the applicant and for the reasons correctly set out in points 13 to 47 of the contested decision, that the Opposition Division’s decision should be annulled in part in so far as the opposition had initially been upheld for ‘flour, confectionery, ices, yeast and baking-powder’.
Lees het arrest hier.
