Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:132
Date: 2024-02-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2024 – Drinks Prod v EUIPO – Wolff and Illg (IGISAN) (Case T‑164/23) (1) ( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark IGISAN – Earlier EU word mark IGNISAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 ) 1. Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Request that directions be issued to an institution – Precluded (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see paragraph 14) 2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 19, 20, 73, 77) 3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – 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 paragraph 21) 4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Level of attention of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 23, 28) 5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark IGISAN and word mark IGNISAN (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 29, 48, 61, 65, 74, 83) 6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraph 30) 7. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 49-51, 59) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Drinks Prod SRL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Siegfried Wolff and Mr Matthias Illg. 1 OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.