Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2023:765
Date: 2023-11-29
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: Poland

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2023 – Vobro v EUIPO – Mieszko (CHERRY Passion) (Case T‑29/23) (1) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark CHERRY Passion – Earlier EU figurative mark MIESZKO PRALINES CHERRISSIMO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) 1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Alteration of a decision of EUIPO – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (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 20, 21, 80, 85, 89) 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 – 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 paragraph 23) 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 – Figurative marks CHERRY Passion and MIESZKO PRALINES CHERRISSIMO (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 25, 35, 47, 48, 61, 62, 69-71, 78, 79, 87, 91, 92, 96, 99, 101) 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraph 27) 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 marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 39, 40) 7. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraphs 105, 106) 8. EU law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paragraph 109) Operative part The Court 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders each party to bear its own costs. 1 OJ C 94, 13.3.2023.