62021TJ0276_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2022 –Moio v EUIPO – Paul Hartmann (moio.care)
(Case T‑276/21) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark moio.care – Earlier EU word mark Molicare – 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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 18, 19, 91, 97)
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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 20, 21)
3.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2))
(see para. 32)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark moio.care and word mark Molicare
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 34, 44, 69, 76, 88, 99)
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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 35)
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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 49-51, 62, 66)
7.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see para. 65)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Moio GmbH to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.