«(Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark CONFORFLEX – Earlier national word and figurative marks FLEX – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)»

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the holder of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Mark CONFORFLEX and figurative marks including the term flex (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) For the Spanish public, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word mark CONFORFLEX, in respect of which registration was sought as a Community trade mark for bedroom furniture falling within Class 20 of the Nice Agreement, and two figurative marks including the word element flex, registered earlier in Spain for all sorts of furniture, including bedroom furniture, falling within the same class.Whilst, from the point of view of the public concerned, the term flex may indeed be regarded as evocative of a characteristic of the goods in question, namely flexibility, the earlier marks do not, on that account, have a highly distinctive character; given that the factors relevant to the assessment of whether there is a likelihood of confusion are interdependent, the fact that the designated products are identical, coupled with the fact that the opposed signs are conceptually very similar, is sufficient for a finding that there is such a likelihood.see paras 56, 58, 62

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 18 February 2004 (1)

((Community trade mark – Application for Community work mark CONFORFLEX – Earlier national word and figurative marks FLEX – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94))

In Case T-10/03,

applicant,

v

defendant, the other party to the proceedings being

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2002 (Case R 542/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Koubi and Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere, SA (Flabesa),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges,

Registrar: B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 November 2003,

gives the following

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Preliminary observations

The claim for refusal of the trade mark sought

The claim for annulment of the contested decision

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber),

hereby:

Legal

Tiili

Vilaras

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 February 2004.

H. Jung

H. Legal

Registrar

President