Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2024:778
Date: 2024-11-06
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: Denmark

Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see paragraph 15) 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 – Distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 23, 73, 77, 78, 86, 87, 93) 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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 29, 30, 34-36, 45) 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 mark AROMA KING and word mark KING’S (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 42, 57, 61, 66, 81, 90, 92, 94) 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 marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Distinctive and descriptive nature of an element common to the two marks – Relevance (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 48, 49) 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 – Element common to two marks having an independent distinctive role in the earlier mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 97, 99, 102, 104, 106) 7. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraph 119) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders House of Prince A/S to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 134, 17.4.2023.