Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:620
Date: 2019-09-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 – NHS v EUIPO — HLC SB Distribution (CRUZADE) (Case T‑378/18) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CRUZADE — Earlier EU figurative mark SANTA CRUZ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark) 1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Power to issue directions — None (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see para. 16) 2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23) 3. Judicial proceedings — Proof — Probative value — Criteria for assessment (see paras 27, 28) 4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 49) 5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51, 69) 6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52) 7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark CRUZADE and figurative mark SANTA CRUZ (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 55, 60-67, 72-76) 8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 54) 9. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 (Case R 1217/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NHS and HLC SB Distribution. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders NHS, Inc., to pay the costs.