Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2020:311
Date: 2020-07-08
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Lithuania

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see paras 20, 21) 2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 24) 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 31, 48, 80, 82, 84) 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 – 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. 32) 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 – Figurative mark SCORIFY and word mark SCOR (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38, 44, 45, 52, 81, 88) 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 49) 7. EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition – Opportunity for the opposing party to adduce evidence in support of the opposition (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rules 15, 18 and 19) (see para. 51) 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 54, 58, 60, 66) 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier 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. 77) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2019 (Case R 1639/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Scor and Scorisk. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Scorify UAB to pay the costs.