Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 April 2020 –Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)
(Case T‑109/19)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
1.      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 — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Not included
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)
(see para. 32)
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 43, 44, 52)
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 TasteSense and word mark MultiSense
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 55-58, 82-84)
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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 77-80)
5.      EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)
(see paras 90, 91)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs.