26As a preliminary point, OHIM disputes the applicants assertion that the Board of Appeal compared only the earlier mark CASTELLUCA and the mark applied for because the proof of use furnished in relation to the earlier mark CASTELLUM was insufficient. It confirms that the Board of Appeal did not assess that evidence because the opponents claims in relation to the earlier mark CASTELLUCA, on which the opposition was also based, were upheld. OHIM points out, in this respect, that a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion on the basis of one of the earlier marks is sufficient for the Community trade mark application to be rejected as a whole and that it is therefore not obliged in such a case to enter into the examination of each of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based (Joined Cases T-183/02 and T-184/02 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — González Cabello and Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (MUNDICOR) [2004] ECR II-965, paragraphs 70 to 72, and Case T-342/02 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion v OHIM — Moser Grupo Medía (Moser Grupo Media), [2004] ECR II-3191, paragraph 48).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.