Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:641
Date: 2018-10-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Cyprus

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 54(2)) 2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) 3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark FLÜGEL — Word marks …VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) 4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Assessment criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) 5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Objective (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) 6. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Assessment criteria — Alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 31-35) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 53, 54) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 60, 66, 69, 82-86) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 68) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 70-72) 6. As regards the application of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark, it should be noted that a very large number of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks are generally mixed, consumed, or indeed marketed together, either in the same establishments or as premixed alcoholic drinks. To consider that those goods should, for that reason alone, be described as similar, when they are not intended to be consumed in either the same circumstances, or in the same state of mind, or, as the case may be, by the same consumers, would put a large number of goods which can be described as ‘drinks’ into one and the same category for the purposes of the application of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. Thus, it cannot be considered that an alcoholic drink and an energy drink are similar merely because they can be mixed, consumed or marketed together, given that the nature, intended purpose and use of those goods differ, based on the presence of, or absence of alcohol in their composition. Furthermore, it must be held that the undertakings which market alcoholic drinks premixed with a non-alcoholic ingredient do not sell that ingredient separately and under the same or similar mark as the premixed alcoholic drink at issue. (see paras 80, 81)