62022TJ0511_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2023 –Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO – Schmitzer (HPU AND YOU)
(Case T‑511/22) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark HPU AND YOU – Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing three hexagons – Earlier EU figurative mark OLIMP – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Family of marks – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see paragraphs 18, 19)
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 24-26)
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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 32, 33)
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 – Figurative mark HPU AND YOU and figurative marks representing three hexagons
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 34, 41, 44, 50, 51, 59, 82, 83)
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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 39, 47)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Likelihood of association – Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family – Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 79, 80)
7.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 94)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. to pay the costs;
3.
Orders Ms Sonja Schmitzer to bear her own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 389, 10.10.2022.