Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2022 –Purasac v EUIPO – Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)
(Case T‑543/21) (1)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Rejeunesse – Earlier EU word mark REVANESSE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
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 16-18, 67)
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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 22, 23)
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 – Figurative mark Rejeunesse and word mark REVANESSE
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 30, 45, 57, 66, 72)
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 31, 32, 42, 43, 54, 55)
5.      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 – Figurative marks – Phonetic comparison
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 61)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Purasac Co. Ltd to pay the costs.
1 OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.