Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2021 –Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO – Nema (âme)
(Case T‑442/20)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark âme – Earlier international figurative mark AMEN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Counteraction of visual and phonetic similarities through conceptual differences – Conditions for counteraction)
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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 19, 20, 74)
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 – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 21)
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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 23)
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 – Composite mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 29, 30)
5.      EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see paras 41, 42)
6.      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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 66)
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 – Word mark âme and figurative mark AMEN
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 73, 78, 79)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 2960/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Nema, on the one hand, and Ms Grangé and Ms Van Strydonck, on the other.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 June 2020 (Case R 2960/2019-4);
2.
Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Isaline Grangé and Ms Alizée Van Strydonck, including the costs necessarily incurred by Ms Grangé and Ms Van Strydonck for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.