Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2023:167
Date: 2023-03-29
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Czechia

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2023 – Machková v EUIPO – Aceites Almenara (ALMARA SOAP) (Case T‑436/22) (1) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ALMARA SOAP – Earlier EU word mark ALMENARA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) 1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Direction issued to the Office – Precluded (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see paragraph 12) 2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see paragraph 14) 3. EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2)) (see paragraph 20) 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 – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 26-28, 95, 96) 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 – 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 paragraph 29) 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 – Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 35, 36) 7. 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 ALMARA SOAP and word mark ALMENARA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 51, 71, 80, 88, 94, 100, 101) 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 56-59, 78, 84) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Ms Veronika Machková and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to each bear their own costs. 1 OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.