Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2023:708
Date: 2023-11-08
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 November 2023 – Liquid Advertising v EUIPO – Liqui.do (Liquid+Arcade) (Case T‑592/22) (1) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Liquid+Arcade – Earlier EU figurative mark LIQUI.DO – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – 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 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 15, 16, 80) 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 – 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 17) 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 – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the European Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraph 22) 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 24, 31, 33) 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 – 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 40, 44, 45) 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 – Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraph 57) 7. 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 – Word mark Liquid+Arcade and figurative mark LIQUI.DO (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 86-89) 8. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see paragraph 92) Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2022 (Case R 2231/2021‑2); 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.