Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD - Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN - Relative ground for refusal - Evidence of use of the earlier mark - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2010 – Matratzen Concord v OHIM – Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD) (Case T-351/08) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD – Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN – Relative ground for refusal – Evidence of use of the earlier mark – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Article 73, first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 – Scope identical with that of Article 253 EC (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73, first sentence) (see paras 17-18, 23) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and (ii) Matratzen Concord GmbH. Information relating to the case Applicant for the Community trade mark: Matratzen Concord GmbH Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD for goods in Classes 10, 20 and 24 – Application No 3355369 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark MATRATZEN for goods in Class 20 Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of the application for a Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007‑2); 2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.