Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2021:698
Date: 2021-10-13
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2021 – Sedus Stoll v EUIPO – Kappes (Sedus ergo+) (Case T‑429/20) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ – Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) 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, 70-72) 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25) 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-41) 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 – Word marks Sedus ergo+ and ERGOPLUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 78-84, 88) 5. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see para. 86) Re: Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll. Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1); 2. Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes; 3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court; 4. Orders Mr Kappes to bear his own costs and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sedus Stoll for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.