Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MESILETTE — Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —Hartmann v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)(Case T-342/10) Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MESILETTE — Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 28-39) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Mölnlycke Health Care AB. 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 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2); 2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.