In Case T-176/13, (Judgment 9 December 2014) the General Court had to review the following opposition:

OHIM, as confirmed by the General Court, found that there was  a likelihood of confusion existed for all the products and services, with the exception of "opinion polls; information and business advice to consumers; support, consulting and management consulting and business organization and business; business information; business management; business administration; business research; commercial information agencies; expertise in commercial business; trade estimates; commercial administration of the products and services of third parties licenses; efficiency experts services; office functions; provision of business products and services; accounting; Analysis of cost; economic forecasts; compilation of statistics; compilation of information into computer databases "in Class 35.

In particular, it found that the products and services, with the exception of those services above, covered by the trade mark had at least a small degree of similarity to the goods and services covered by the earlier mark. In addition, the contested CTM had a similarity with  the earlier trade mark the general impression was dominated by the element 'generalia ". Thus, there was a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs, on the basis of Article 8 paragraph 1 b) CTMR.