Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:425
Date: 2025-04-30
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for annulment
Origin: Czechia

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2025 – DoDo Services v EUIPO – doqo (doqo) (Case T‑298/24) ( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark doqo – Earlier EU figurative mark Do – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 ) 1. Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Request that directions be issued to an institution – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see paragraph 15) 2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Persons concerned by a decision adversely affecting them – Decision rejecting an opposition to the registration of a mark on the basis of part of the arguments put forward – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(4)) (see paragraphs 18, 19) 3. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review 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 paragraph 24) 4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 29, 30, 74, 85) 5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 40, 52, 53, 69, 70) 6. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraphs 55-57, 91) 7. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative marks doqo and Do Do (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 80-84, 86-88, 90, 92) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders DoDo Services s. r. o., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by doqo; 3. Declares that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is to bear its own costs.