Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2020:162
Date: 2020-04-29
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Luxembourg

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 April 2020 – Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense) (Case T‑109/19) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — Relative ground for refusal — 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 — 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 32) 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 43, 44, 52) 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 — Figurative mark TasteSense and word mark MultiSense (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 55-58, 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 77-80) 5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 90, 91) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs.