Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2022
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2022
Data
- Court
- General Court
- Case date
- 30 maart 2022
Verdict
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2022 –
SFD v EUIPO – Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)
(Case T‑35/21)(*)
"(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION - Earlier EU word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))"
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markCriteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 18-20, 80, 86)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markAssessment of the likelihood of confusionDetermination of the relevant publicAttention level of the public
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 22)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity between the goods or services in questionCriteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 29)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity of the marks concernedCriteria for assessmentComposite mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 35, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 58)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity of the marks concernedAssessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 47, 63)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markFigurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION and word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 66, 71, 75, 79, 87-89)
EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markWeak distinctive character of the earlier markEffect
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 85)
Operative part
The Court:
Dismisses the action;
Orders SFD S.A. to pay the costs.