Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:933
Date: 2025-10-01
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Poland

summary of its assessment of the similarity of the marks in paragraph 41 above. It follows from the Board of Appeal’s reasoning in the contested decision that the presence of that element explains in part why it concluded that there was an average degree of visual similarity and at least an average degree of phonetic similarity, and not that there was a high degree of visual and phonetic similarity despite the common element ‘lux’. In addition, the applicant does not specify whether and, as the case may be, why the presence of the element ‘tools’ in the earlier mark means that the marks at issue are visually and phonetically different despite, first, the common element ‘lux’, which is, moreover, distinctive in respect of at least a non-negligible part of the public at issue, and, secondly, the size and position of ‘tools’ in the earlier mark, which make the latter less visible than the element ‘lux’ within that mark. 47 Thirdly, as regards the figurative elements, the Board of Appeal took account of those elements as a point of difference between the marks at issue from a visual standpoint. In view of their limited role in the overall impressions created by those marks, which was found by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 36 of the contested decision and which is not disputed by the applicant, and of the fact that those elements cannot be pronounced, it must be held that the Board of Appeal took sufficient account of the figurative elements of the marks at issue in the context of the visual and phonetic comparison of those marks. 48 Fourthly, the applicant does not put forward any argument disputing the Board of Appeal’s assessment, in paragraph 40 of the contested decision, that the conceptual comparison was neutral for the Italian- and Spanish-speaking parts of the relevant public in respect of which the element ‘lux’ has no meaning. 49 It follows from the foregoing that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment in its examination of the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity between the marks at issue. Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion 50 A global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the trade marks and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon, C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, VENADO with frame and others, T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74). 51 In the present case, in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that there was a likelihood of confusion in respect of the Italian- and Spanish-speaking parts of the relevant public, in view of the goods at issue being identical, the average degree of visual similarity between the marks at issue and the at least average degree of phonetic similarity, and the normal distinctive character of the earlier mark. According to the Board of Appeal, at least a non-negligible part of the Italian and Spanish-speaking public will therefore be likely to believe that the goods covered by the marks at issue come from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings. 52 The applicant disputes that finding of the Board of Appeal, claiming that, in view of the incorrect methodology for assessing the similarity of the signs and the incorrect findings that ensue from that methodology as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion, the Board of Appeal did not correctly apply Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 and infringed the procedural rules by failing to take into account some of its arguments and some of the assessments of the Opposition Division. 53 EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments. 54 It must be stated, first, that, as is apparent from paragraph 20 above, the applicant does not dispute that the goods covered by the mark applied for and those in Classes 6, 16 and 21 covered by the earlier mark and listed in paragraph 5 above are identical. Secondly, the arguments of the applicant concerning the similarity of the marks at issue in respect of the Italian- and Spanish-speaking parts of the relevant public and the distinctive character of the elements of which those marks consist in respect of those parts of the relevant public were rejected, as is apparent from the analysis in paragraphs 21 to 49 above. Furthermore, the applicant does not put forward any additional argument disputing the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion as regards the Italian- and Spanish-speaking parts of the relevant public carried out by the Board of Appeal. 55 It follows that the applicant has not established that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. 56 Consequently, the applicant’s single plea in law must be rejected and the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 57 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 58 Although the applicant has been unsuccessful, EUIPO has contended that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs only in the event that an oral hearing is convened and the intervener did not make any application to that effect. Since no hearing was held, it is appropriate to decide to order each party to bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Group Pack sp. z o.o., the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Obi Group Sourcing GmbH each to bear their own costs. Kowalik-Bańczyk Hesse Dimitrakopoulos Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 October 2025. V. Di Bucci M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.