Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO
(Case C‑819/18 P)
(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Criteria for assessing distinctive character — Phonetic similarity of the signs at issue — Figurative mark NUUNA)
1.      Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paras 5, 6)
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 — Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 5, 6)
3.      Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)
(see paras 5, 6)
4.      Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)
(see paras 5, 6)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
2.
Next design+produktion GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs.