JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
11 February 2026 (*)
( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark athom Smart Home – Earlier international word mark ATHOM – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 )
In Case T‑618/24,
Athom Holding BV, established in Enschede (Netherlands), represented by M. Rijsdijk, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by M. Eberl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being
Chuhaiya E-Commerce (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, established in Shenzhen (China)
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed, at the time of the deliberations, of G. De Baere, acting as President, K. Kecsmár (Rapporteur) and S. Kingston, Judges,
Registrar: P. Cullen, Administrator,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
further to the hearing on 29 October 2025,
gives the following
Judgment
1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Athom Holding BV, seeks the alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 October 2024 (Case R 13/2024-2) (‘the contested decision’).
Background to the dispute
2        On 16 June 2022, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, Chuhaiya E-Commerce (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd, filed an application with EUIPO for registration of the following figurative sign:
3        The mark applied for covered goods in Classes 9 and 11 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:
–        Class 9: ‘Electric plugs; remote control apparatus; electric sockets; electric door bells; electronic access control systems for interlocking doors; gas testing instruments; electrical adapters; measuring devices, electric; inductors [electricity]; switches, electric; circuit breakers; climate control digital thermostats; locks, electric; smoke detectors; smart speakers; electric installations for the remote control of industrial operations; light regulators [dimmers], electric; home automation hubs; hygrometers; thermometers, not for medical purposes’;
–        Class 11: ‘Light bulbs; water purification installations; solar thermal collectors [heating]; water supply installations; heating installations [water]; watering machines for agricultural purposes; apparatus for fertilizer irrigation; dehumidifiers; air sterilisers; germicidal lamps for purifying air; ceiling lights; flushing apparatus; water heaters; heating installations; water intake apparatus; hydroponic growing systems; humidifiers; electric fans for personal use; gas scrubbing apparatus; fairy lights for festive decoration’.
4        On 9 August 2022, the applicant filed a notice of opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods referred to in paragraph 3 above.
5        The opposition was based on international registration designating the European Union No 1 605 016 (‘the earlier mark’), relating to the word mark ATHOM and covering, inter alia, goods and services in Classes 9 and 42 and corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:
–        Class 9: ‘Software applications [downloadable], interfaces, control devices and electronic operating and control devices for automation, information provision and entertainment in and around the house (home automation); data processing software for home automation, home entertainment and communication with the internet, including by voice; microphone extenders; telecommunication software; computer network software; software and software programs for managing and monitoring movable and immovable property; software applications for mobile phones and tablets for managing and monitoring movable and immovable property; electronic databases; anti-theft and track and trace software; software for remote control and management of movable and immovable property [so-called internet-of-things software and machine-to-machine software]; IOT (internet of things) and M2M (machine to machine) software for remote control, monitoring, management and control of machines, devices, applications, vehicles, real estate, personnel, inventory, industrial and agricultural equipment, people, pets and real estate; sensors; all the aforementioned goods not being or intended for microprocessors or parts therefor’;
–        Class 42: ‘Development, design and maintenance of human-machine interfaces, directed at home automation in the broadest sense; development of systems for the automation of houses and buildings; the certification of software that is used in the field of the automation of movable and immovable property; research and design services in the field of internet of things software and household electronics; technical advice with regard to the use of telecommunication and internet of things software; design, development, programming, implementation and maintenance of computer software, computer software applications and computer systems; hosting of online software platforms and web applications; making software [SaaS] and online platforms available; cloud computing services; information technology [IT] consultancy, design and development of telecommunications networks; computer network services, computer and network security services; installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; technical consultation services for the operation of the electronic information networks of others; technical support services, namely, technical management of servers, electronic information networks of others and troubleshooting in the form of diagnosing server problems; all the aforementioned services not for use in connection with microprocessors’.
6        The ground relied on in support of the opposition was that set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
7        On 6 November 2023, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition in part, as regards the goods ‘remote control apparatus; electronic access control systems for interlocking doors; gas testing instruments; measuring devices, electric; climate control digital thermostats; smoke detectors; electric installations for the remote control of industrial operations; home automation hubs; hygrometers; thermometers, not for medical purposes’ in Class 9.
8        On 3 January 2024, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Opposition Division, in so far as it had rejected the opposition.
9        By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the appeal in part. It partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and upheld the opposition, on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, in respect of all the goods referred to in the application for registration, save for ‘electric plugs; electric sockets; electrical adapters; inductors [electricity]; circuit breakers’ in Class 9, and ‘light bulbs; fairy lights for festive decoration’ in Class 11 (‘the goods in Classes 9 and 11 covered by the mark applied for’), which it found to be dissimilar to the goods covered by the earlier mark. First, in respect of the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for, the Board of Appeal found that they were generic components for electrical installations and had no close relationship with the goods and services covered by the earlier mark, given that they were not likely to be used as devices connected remotely to manage electrical power. Secondly, as regards the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for, it found that it was not likely that those goods would be connected as smart devices within a domotic system and that it could not be inferred from the wording of those goods that they could be connected remotely to form part of a home automation system.
Forms of order sought
10      The applicant claims that the Court should:
–        alter the contested decision by upholding the opposition and declaring that registration of the mark applied for must be refused as regards the goods ‘light bulbs; fairy lights for festive decoration; electric plugs; electric sockets; electrical adapters; inductors [electricity]; circuit breakers’.
–        order EUIPO to pay the costs.
11      EUIPO contends that the Court should:
–        dismiss the action;
–        order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that a hearing is convened.
Law
Admissibility
Admissibility of the action
12      Under Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, the General Court has jurisdiction both to annul and to alter the contested decision. It should be pointed out, however, that the annulment of all or part of a decision is a necessary prerequisite to its alteration. Accordingly, an application for alteration cannot be granted in the absence of a claim for annulment (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 November 2006, Camper v OHIM – JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER), T‑43/05, not published, EU:T:2006:370, paragraph 99).
13      In the present case, it must be noted that, by its first head of claim, the applicant merely seeks the alteration of the contested decision. Nevertheless, in the light of the content of the application, that head of claim must be interpreted as including an application for annulment (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2014, Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM – Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE), T‑509/12, EU:T:2014:89, paragraphs 15 and 16 and the case-law cited).
14      Furthermore, at the hearing, the applicant confirmed that its first head of claim should be understood as seeking partial annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it concerns the goods in respect of which the opposition was rejected.
15      It follows that the first head of claim is admissible. It is appropriate to clarify that the question whether the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s power to alter the contested decision are met in the present case is a question of substance which has no bearing on the admissibility of the action (judgment of 2 June 2021, Style & Taste v EUIPO – The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player), T‑169/19, EU:T:2021:318, paragraph 17). That question will be addressed, if necessary, after consideration of the applicant’s arguments on the merits.
Admissibility of evidence adduced for the first time before the Court
16      EUIPO asks the Court to declare inadmissible Annex A.10 to the application, which contains screenshots from online shops in which domestic products similar to those in respect of which the opposition was rejected are presented as ‘smart’. It submits that that annex constitutes evidence produced by the applicant for the first time before the Court. It points out that the legality of the contested decision must be reviewed solely on the basis of the evidence produced in the proceedings before it.
17      At the hearing, the applicant challenged EUIPO’s position, submitting that Annex A.10 to the application did not contain any new ground or argument and was intended only to supplement the examples of ‘smart’ products already produced in the proceedings before EUIPO.
18      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the purpose of actions before the Court under Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 is to review the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal. Pursuant to Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001, that review must be carried out in the light of the factual and legal context of the dispute as it was brought before the Board of Appeal (see judgment of 1 February 2005, SPAG v OHIM – Dann and Backer (HOOLIGAN), T‑57/03, EU:T:2005:29, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited). It follows that the Court may not annul or alter a decision against which an action has been brought on grounds which come into existence subsequent to its adoption (judgments of 11 May 2006, Sunrider v OHIM, C‑416/04 P, EU:C:2006:310, paragraph 55, and of 13 March 2007, OHIM v Kaul, C‑29/05 P, EU:C:2007:162, paragraph 53).
19      Therefore, it is not the Court’s function to review the facts in the light of documents adduced for the first time before it. To allow the examination of such evidence would be contrary to Article 188 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, according to which the parties’ pleadings may not change the subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. Accordingly, the evidence submitted for the first time before the Court must be declared inadmissible and there is no need to examine it (see judgment of 14 May 2009, Fiorucci v OHIM – Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI), T‑165/06, EU:T:2009:157, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
20      Furthermore, the fact that the applicant is seeking the alteration of a decision cannot undermine the considerations set out above, as the power of the Court to alter decisions does not have the effect of conferring on it the power to substitute its own reasoning for that of a Board of Appeal or to carry out an assessment on which that Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM, C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraph 72).
21      It must be stated that, in the present case, the documents in Annex A.10 to the application were not part of the administrative file submitted by the applicant during the proceedings before EUIPO, and were produced for the first time before the Court.
22      Accordingly, Annex A.10 to the application cannot be taken into consideration and must be declared inadmissible.
Substance
23      The applicant raises, in essence, two pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation, and, secondly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation.
24      The Court considers it appropriate to examine the second plea, which relates solely to the comparison of the goods and services at issue.
25      The applicant submits that the Board of Appeal was wrong to find that the goods at issue were dissimilar and to conclude, as a result, that there was no likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, according to the applicant, the mark applied for covers generic versions and smart versions of goods, and the smart versions can be regarded as an independent subcategory.
26      EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments. It submits that the applicant puts forward specific arguments only as regards the ‘electric plugs’ in Class 9 and the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for. In addition, EUIPO submits that, for the purposes of assessing whether the goods and services are similar, it is only the description of the goods in respect of which registration of the mark was sought that is relevant, and that the case-law cited by the applicant refers to the procedure concerning absolute grounds for refusal, but not to the procedure concerning relative grounds. Lastly, it compares the goods at issue.
27      Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 provides that, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for must not be registered if, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected. The likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.
28      According to settled case-law, the risk that the public may believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion. The likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, according to the relevant public’s perception of the signs and goods or services in question and taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered (see judgment of 9 July 2003, Laboratorios RTB v OHIM – Giorgio Beverly Hills (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS), T‑162/01, EU:T:2003:199, paragraphs 30 to 33 and the case-law cited).
29      For the purposes of applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, a likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the marks at issue are identical or similar and that the goods or services which they cover are identical or similar. Those conditions are cumulative (see judgment of 22 January 2009, Commercy v OHIM – easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel), T‑316/07, EU:T:2009:14, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
30      The question whether the Board of Appeal was right to find, as regards some of the goods covered by the mark applied for, that there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, must be examined in the light of those considerations.
31      As regards the definition of the relevant public, in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal observed that the goods covered by the marks at issue were intended both for the public at large, such as DIY enthusiasts, and for business consumers with specific professional knowledge or expertise in the fields of building and domotic systems, displaying a level of attention varying from average to high. Since the earlier mark was an international trade mark registration designating the European Union, the assessment had to be based on the perception of the relevant public in all the Member States of the European Union. However, for reasons of procedural economy, the Board of Appeal decided that the likelihood of confusion should be assessed having regard to the English-speaking part of the relevant public.
32      The Board of Appeal’s findings as regards the definition of the relevant public, which appear to be well founded in the light of the evidence in the file and are not, moreover, disputed by the applicant, must be upheld.
33      For the purposes of assessing the similarity of the goods, it is necessary to compare, on the one hand, the goods in Class 9 covered by the earlier mark, in particular ‘software applications [downloadable], interfaces, control devices and electronic operating and control devices for automation; all the aforementioned goods not being or intended for microprocessors or parts therefor’, which relate to software applications for the remote control and management of temperature, lighting and security in a smart home, via connections to home automation devices, and, on the other hand, the goods covered by the mark applied for in Classes 9 and 11.
34      According to settled case-law, in assessing the similarity of the goods or services at issue, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. Other factors may also be taken into account, such as the distribution channels of the goods concerned (see judgment of 14 May 2013, Sanco v OHIM – Marsalman (Representation of a chicken), T‑249/11, EU:T:2013:238, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
35      Goods or services which are complementary are those where there is a close connection between them, in the sense that one is indispensable or important for the use of the other in such a way that consumers may think that the responsibility for the production of those goods or provision of those services lies with the same undertaking (see judgment of 22 January 2009, easyHotel, T‑316/07, EU:T:2009:14, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).
Comparison of the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for with the goods covered by the earlier mark
36      In paragraph 38 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal observed that the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for, which are generic components for electrical installations, did not present a close relationship with the goods and services covered by the earlier mark, as they were not likely to be used as devices connected remotely to manage electrical power. It concluded that those goods were dissimilar to the goods and services covered by the earlier mark.
37      The applicant submits that the arguments and annexes which it submitted before the Board of Appeal show that ‘sockets’ can be managed remotely in a smart home and have their own communication protocol. It adds that the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for are all goods that make it possible to manage electrical energy, as is shown, inter alia, by Annex A.8.8 to the application, describing a socket that can ‘turn any device into a smart device’.
38      EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments. It submits that the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for are generic electrical and electronic components that can be used in any electrical installation and device capable of fulfilling a specific function in a broad range of different systems. According to EUIPO, even if those goods can be components of a home automation or domotic system, they are not sufficiently close for a complementary relationship to be found. The manufacture of those goods involves the use of different technology, equipment and know-how, and it is therefore unlikely that their usual producers will be the same. EUIPO also submits that they are not likely to have the same distribution channels as the goods covered by the earlier mark. Although the goods may coincide in terms of their target customers, that is not in itself sufficient for a finding of any degree of similarity.
39      In the present case, the Court recalls that the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for are components of electrical installations and that the goods covered by the earlier mark relate to software applications designed for the remote control and management of temperature, lighting and security in a smart home, via connections to home automation devices.
40      Furthermore, at the hearing, EUIPO accepted that electric sockets in Class 9 could include smart sockets that can be controlled remotely, whether by means of software, a remote control or an equivalent device.
41      It should be noted that, in the proceedings before EUIPO, the applicant submitted the following evidence:
–        two screenshots from the Wiz website, relating to a Wiz electric plug described as capable of making any socket ‘smart’ and being controllable remotely using a smartphone or by voice;
–        a screenshot from the Action sales website, relating to an LSC Smart Connect plug described as easy to control with a smartphone, capable of turning any device into a smart device and working over a Wi-Fi connection. That product is shown alongside other ‘smart’ products for the home and is compatible with the LSC Smart Connect application, enabling remote control of LSC Smart Connect products;
–        a screenshot from the Calex sales website, showing three models of smart plug;
–        three screenshots from Athom’s website entitled ‘Open Sources, Smart Home Hardware’ and including four models of electric plug.
42      Accordingly, having regard to the evidence produced by the applicant, there appears to be a close link between the ‘electric plugs; electric sockets’ in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for and the software applications designed to manage lighting in a smart home via connections to home automation devices. Thus, those goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for and the goods in Class 9 covered by the earlier mark are complementary, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 35 above. Each is important for the use of the other, and they may have the same manufacturers, be found on the same websites or at the same outlets, where they may be bought at the same time, and target the same consumers.
43      It should also be noted that, in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, in order to uphold the opposition in respect of ‘electric door bells; switches, electric; locks, electric; smart speakers; light regulators [dimmers]’ in Class 9, which are electrical and electronic components used to control lights and security and allow remote communication via speakers, the Board of Appeal found that those goods and the goods in Class 9 covered by the earlier mark were complementary. It held that the use of the home automation software covered by the earlier mark was strictly related to the use of the goods referred to above, so that they functioned in combination with each other. According to the Board of Appeal, it was apparent from the documents produced by the applicant that undertakings offered home automation services as well as smart devices to be used to connect the home to the domotic system. Consequently, the Board of Appeal concluded that those goods could have the same manufacturers, be found on the same websites or at the same outlets, where they could be bought at the same time, and that they targeted the same consumers. Lastly, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, it concluded, as a result, that those goods were similar.
44      In the light of paragraphs 36 and 37 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal should have applied the same reasoning to the comparison of the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for and the goods in Class 9 covered by the earlier mark. As the applicant rightly points out, the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for can be controlled and managed remotely in a smart home and can thus function together with the home automation software covered by the earlier mark.
45      Accordingly, in finding that the goods in Class 9 covered by the mark applied for were not closely linked to the goods and services covered by the earlier mark, on the basis that they were not likely to be used as devices connected remotely to manage electrical power, the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment which vitiates its conclusion that those goods and the ‘software applications [downloadable], interfaces, control devices and electronic operating and control devices for automation’ covered by the earlier mark are dissimilar. The Board of Appeal was thus wrong to find that there was no similarity between those goods.
Comparison of the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for with the goods covered by the earlier mark
46      In paragraph 40 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that it was not likely that the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for would be connected as smart devices within a domotic system, and that it could not be inferred from the wording of those goods that they could be connected remotely to form part of a home automation system. According to the Board of Appeal, those goods would require additional features in order to be connected within a lighting installation. It concluded that those goods were dissimilar to the goods and services covered by the earlier mark.
47      The applicant submits that the arguments and annexes which it submitted to the Board of Appeal show that ‘bulbs’ and ‘fairy lights’ can be managed remotely in a smart home and have their own communication protocol. It submits that the fact that light bulbs can be controlled by means of a remote control confirms that those goods are connected remotely, which makes them ‘smart home’ products.
48      EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments and submits that the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for would require additional features in order to be connected within a lighting installation. It submits that even if the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for can conceivably be used in home automation systems or domotic systems and can potentially target the same public as some of the goods covered by the earlier mark, the relevant consumer would not expect those goods to be manufactured by the same undertakings because of the different technology, equipment and expertise required for their manufacture. In addition, EUIPO submits that the use in combination of goods that are merely used together by choice or convenience is not enough to find them similar. Accordingly, those goods are not complementary.
49      In the present case, at the hearing, EUIPO confirmed that light bulbs in Class 11 could include smart bulbs which could be controlled remotely, whether by a remote control or an equivalent device.
50      It should be noted that the applicant submitted, during the proceedings before EUIPO, the following evidence:
–        several screenshots from the IKEA sales website, relating to light bulbs compatible with IKEA HOME SMART, a software application designed for the management and remote control of lighting, air purification and wireless speakers in a smart home;
–        several screenshots from the Philips website, relating to Hue smart lightstrips and bulbs, which include the Bluetooth and Zigbee communication protocols in their technical specifications and are compatible with the Philips Hue application, enabling lighting to be organised, controlled and personalised;
–        several screenshots from the Wiz sales website showing several types of smart bulb that can be controlled via an application or by voice and are compatible with the Wiz Connected application, enabling lighting to be organised and controlled;
–        several screenshots from the Calex website, showing several types of smart bulb that are compatible with the Calex application, enabling lighting to be managed and controlled;
–        several screenshots of pages from Athom’s website with the heading ‘Open Sources, Smart Home Hardware’, showing one type of light bulb and three types of strip light.
51      Accordingly, in the light of the evidence produced by the applicant, it must be held that there is a close link between ‘light bulbs’ and ‘fairy lights for festive decoration’ and the software applications designed to manage the lighting in a smart home via connections to home automation devices. Thus, the goods in Class 11 covered by the mark applied for and the goods in Class 9 covered by the earlier mark are complementary, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 35 above. Each is important for the use of the other, and they may have the same manufacturers, be found on the same websites or at the same outlets, where they may be purchased at the same time, and target the same consumers.
52      In addition, it should be noted that, in paragraph 39 of the contested decision, in order to uphold the opposition in respect of ‘water purification installations; solar thermal collectors [heating]; water supply installations; heating installations [water]; dehumidifiers; air sterilisers; germicidal lamps for purifying air; ceiling lights; flushing apparatus; water heaters; heating installations; water intake apparatus; hydroponic growing systems; humidifiers; electric fans for personal use; gas scrubbing apparatus’ in Class 11, the Board of Appeal found that those goods were devices which are likely to form part of a domestic automation system (or domotic system) enabling remote management and control of water, heating, air, lighting and gas installations. It accordingly concluded that those goods and the goods in Class 9 covered by the earlier mark were similar to the extent that they are complementary, can have the same producers and distribution channels, and target the same public.
53      In the light of paragraph 39 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal should have applied the same reasoning to ‘bulbs’ and ‘fairy lights for festive decoration’ in Class 11. As the applicant rightly points out, and contrary to the Board of Appeal’s findings in paragraph 40 of the contested decision, those products can be managed ‘remotely’ in a smart home and have their own communication protocol, which means that they can be used in conjunction with the home automation software covered by the earlier mark.
54      Accordingly, in finding that it was not likely that ‘light bulbs’ and ‘fairy lights for festive decoration’ would be connected as ‘smart devices’ within a domotic system, the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment which vitiates its conclusion that those goods and the ‘software applications [downloadable], interfaces, control devices and electronic operating and control devices for automation’ covered by the earlier mark are dissimilar. It must therefore be concluded that the Board of Appeal was wrong to find that there was no similarity between those goods.
55      It follows from all of the foregoing that the second plea, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, must be upheld, and, accordingly, that the contested decision must be annulled in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal as regards the goods in Classes 9 and 11 covered by the mark applied for, it being unnecessary to examine the first plea.
56      Furthermore, it must be held that the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s power to alter decisions are not satisfied. Given the similarity between the goods in Classes 9 and 11 covered by the mark applied for and the goods covered by the earlier mark, the Board of Appeal should have made an assessment of the likelihood of confusion having regard to all the relevant factors, which it did not do in the present case.
57      In those circumstances, it is not for the Court to proceed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion in relation to those goods, as the power to alter decisions conferred on the Court by Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 does not have the effect of conferring on it the power to carry out an assessment on which that Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 July 2011, Edwin v OHIM, C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraph 72).
Costs
58      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
59      Since EUIPO has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
hereby:
1.      Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 October 2024 (Case R 13/2024-2), in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in relation to the ‘electric plugs; electric sockets; electrical adapters; inductors [electricity]; circuit breakers’ in Class 9, and the ‘light bulbs; fairy lights for festive decoration’ in Class 11, covered by the mark applied for;
2.      Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.      Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Athom Holding BV.
De Baere
Kecsmár
Kingston
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 February 2026.
V. Di Bucci
S. Papasavvas
Registrar
President
*      Language of the case: English.