Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2021:256
Date: 2021-05-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2021 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Valvis Holding (AC AQUA AC) (Case T‑638/19) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AC AQUA AC – Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA – 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 – 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. 18) 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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29, 90, 95) 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 – 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 para. 31) 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 between the goods or services in question – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 45) 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 48-51) 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 of the marks concerned – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60-65) 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Conceptual similarity between the marks composed of verbal elements in different languages – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 86) 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Three-dimensional mark AC AQUA AC and three-dimensional marks VODAVODA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 97-100) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 (Case R 649/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Stars & Sons and Valvis Holding. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Valvis Holding SA to pay the costs.