Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:429
Date: 2019-06-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Judgment delivered after back reference
Origin: France

Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2017 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE) (Case T‑181/16) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure) 1. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19) 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 — Word mark MASTER PRECISE and figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 29, 36, 39, 40, 43, 52, 53) 3. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27, 49) 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 — Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed — Make-up industry (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal. Operative part 1. The action is dismissed. 2. L’Oréal is ordered to pay the costs.