«(Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark CASTILLO – Earlier national figurative mark EL CASTILLO – Likelihood of confusion – Similar marks already on the relevant market)»

1.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services – Similarity between the products in question – Assessment criteria – Complementary nature of the products – Fact that products belong to a single product family – Relevance (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

2.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark – Relevance (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

3.. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar products or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark CASTILLO and word and figurative mark containing the word EL CASTILLO (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 4 November 2003 (1)

((Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark CASTILLO – Earlier national figurative mark EL CASTILLO – Likelihood of confusion – Similar marks already on the relevant market))

In Case T-85/02,

applicant,

v

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) being

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

composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges,

Registrar: B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,

having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 March 2002,having regard to the response of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) lodged at the Court Registry on 16 July 2002,further to the hearing on 11 June 2003,

gives the following

Arguments of the parties

Comparison of the relevant products

Comparison of the conflicting signs and the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue

Findings of the Court

Comparison of the relevant products

Comparison of the conflicting signs

Likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

hereby:

Forwood

Pirrung

Meij

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 4 November 2003.

H. Jung

N.J. Forwood

Registrar

President