62019TJ0037_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 April 2020 –Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)
(Case T‑37/19)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CIMPRESS — Earlier EU figurative mark impress — Earlier national word mark Impress-Media — 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 28, 29, 88, 92)
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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 35, 36)
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 — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 1(2) and 8(1)(b))
(see paras 44, 46)
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 — Coexistence of earlier marks — Recognition of an EU trade mark as having a certain degree of distinctiveness
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 47)
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark CIMPRESS and figurative mark impress
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 49-51, 70, 77, 82-84, 93-95)
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 — Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 52-54, 63-65, 71)
7.
EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU
(Art. 296 TFEU; (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)
(see para. 60)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2018 (Joined Cases R 1716/2017-2 and R 1786/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Impress Media and Cimpress Schweiz.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Authorises Impress GmbH to replace Impress Media GmbH as intervener;
2.
Dismisses the action;
3.
Orders Cimpress Schweiz GmbH to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Impress.