In Case T-41/12, the General Court dismissed the appeal in the following opposition :

The Opposition Division found that evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark had been adduced as regards clothes for ladies, men and children, but that the documents made no reference to boots, shoes and slippers.  The Court confirmed that the evidence demonstrated that the sales effected, even though they were not considerable, constitute use which objectively is such as to create or preserve an outlet for the goods concerned.

Furthermore, the goods in question are identical or similar  and the signs at issue have an average degree of visual and phonetic similarity ; the signs did not convey any concept. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the applicant’s argument as to the fame of the designer who is behind the mark applied for and which, it claimed, the Board of Appeal failed to take into consideration. It is evident that the documents submitted in the course of the administrative proceedings, with the exception of one press article published in El Mundo and dated 7 March 2006, are all subsequent to the date of the application for registration, namely 11 July 2006, and their content does not in any way refer to notoriety acquired before that date, with the result that those documents cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of establishing the notoriety claimed.  Further, as OHIM correctly observes, even if, in any event, the documents produced by the applicant were capable of establishing that Ms L’Wren Scott was known to certain celebrities, it is clear that those documents do not show that Ms L’Wren Scott herself had celebrity status in Spain for the relevant public, with the consequence that the relevant public would perceive the mark applied for as forming an autonomous conceptual unit, rather than as the mere association of two elements, namely ‘l’wren’ and ‘scott’.

Consequently, having regard to the average distinctiveness of the earlier mark, there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue according to Article 8(1) b CTMR.