Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:143
Date: 2017-03-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 March 2017 — Lauritzen Holding v EUIPO — DK Company (IWEAR) (Case T‑622/14) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark IWEAR — Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) 1. 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 18, 37) 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19) 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 — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 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 — Word marks IWEAR and INWEAR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22, 33, 38, 48) 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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36) 6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see paras 43-45) 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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of an EU trade mark as having a certain degree of distinctiveness (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 47) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1935/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between IC Companys A/S and Lauritzen Holding. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Lauritzen Holding AS to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by IC Companys A/S for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).