62023TJ0164_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2024 –Drinks Prod v EUIPO – Wolff and Illg (IGISAN)
(Case T‑164/23) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark IGISAN – Earlier EU word mark IGNISAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Request that directions be issued to an institution – Precluded
(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))
(see paragraph 14)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 19, 20, 73, 77)
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 – Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade 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 paragraph 21)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Level of attention of the public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 23, 28)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark IGISAN and word mark IGNISAN
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 29, 48, 61, 65, 74, 83)
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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraph 30)
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 49-51, 59)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Drinks Prod SRL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Siegfried Wolff and Mr Matthias Illg.
(
1
)	OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.