T-325/04
Issues:
Opposition proceedings.
Relative ground for refusal.
Likelihood of confusion.
Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application.
Identity of services.
Similarity of signs.
Trade marks concerned:
WORLDLINK, LiNK.
Findings:
51. According to the case‑law, the restriction brought about by Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, according to which, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, OHIM’s examination is restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought, does not preclude it from taking into consideration, in addition to the facts expressly put forward by the parties to the opposition proceedings, facts which are well known, that is, which are likely to be known by anyone or which may be learnt from generally accessible sources (Case T‑185/02 Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM – DaimlerChrysler (PICARO) [2004] ECR II‑1739, paragraph 29).
52. In particular, the Board of Appeal may base its analysis on facts arising from practical experience generally acquired from the marketing of general consumer goods which are likely to be known by anyone and are in particular known by the consumers of those goods (see, to that effect, Case T‑402/02 Storck v OHIM (Shape of a sweet wrapper) [2004] ECR II‑3849, paragraph 58).
Judgment text:
T-325/04, Citigroup v. OHMI.
Published:
—