62023TJ0507_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2024 –ZB v EUIPO – Muhsinoglu (X ENERGY DRINK)
(Case T‑507/23) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ENERGY DRINK – Earlier EU figurative mark X Energy Drink – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Alteration of a decision of EUIPO – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))
(see paragraph 16)
2.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Essential procedural requirement
(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)
(see paragraphs 20, 22)
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 – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 33, 34, 76, 80, 84, 85)
4.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 41)
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 goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 43, 45, 46)
6.
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 ENERGY DRINK and X Energy Drink
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 52, 61, 62, 64, 73, 87)
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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 53, 54)
8.
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Intellectual property litigation – Recoverable costs – Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2))
(see paragraph 91)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders ZB, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay those incurred by Siyabend Goran Muhsinoglu before the General Court;
3.
Declares that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C C/2023/219, 23.10.2023.