62024TJ0299_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2025 –KHG v EUIPO – Panther Deutschland (Baltic Breeze)
(Case T‑299/24)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Baltic Breeze – Earlier EU word mark HyBreeze – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 – 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 16)
2.
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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 24, 31, 35, 38, 71, 76)
3.
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 – Word marks Baltic Breeze and HyBreeze
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 34, 40, 47, 56, 59, 60, 66, 78-80, 86-90, 104)
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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 39, 50)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive character of a sign – Geographical names
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraphs 51, 52, 58)
6.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 65)
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 – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 100-102)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders KHG GmbH & Co KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
3.
Orders Panther Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.