Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)
(Case T‑398/16)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS — Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) 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, eighth recital and Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 16, 17, 69)
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 — Figurative marks COFFEE ROCKS and STARBUCKS COFFEE
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))
(see paras 18, 19, 60-66, 71, 72, 81-85)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 45-47)
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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 70)
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 — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Degree of similarity required
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))
(see paras 76-79)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Starbucks Corp. and Ms Hasmik Nersesyan.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4);
2.
Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.