Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2020:12
Date: 2020-01-29
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 29 January 2020 – Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO) (Case T‑239/19) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ENCANTO — Earlier national word mark BELCANTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) 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, 19, 46) 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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20) 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22) 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 24, 27, 30) 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 — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26) 6. EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 36) 7. Action for annulment — Pleas in law — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law (see para. 49) 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 — Figurative mark ENCANTO and word mark BELCANTO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 51) Re: Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 (Case R 392/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nordbrand Nordhausen and Vinos de Arganza. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Vinos de Arganza, SL, to pay the costs.