62019TJ0844_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –Apologistics v EUIPO – Peikert (discount-apotheke.de)
(Case T‑844/19)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark discount-ap*theke.de – Earlier EU word marks APODISCOUNTER and APO and earlier figurative marks apo-discounter.de, apo.co and apo.de – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 – 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 29, 30, 102, 103)
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 para. 31)
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 discount-ap*theke.de – Word marks APODISCOUNTER and APO and figurative marks apo-discounter.de, apo.co and apo.de
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 32, 34, 48, 49, 54, 96, 111-115, 120)
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 between the goods or services in question – Complementary nature of the goods or services
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 38, 39)
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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 56, 57)
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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 58, 59)
7.
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 – Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)
(see para. 100)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 (Case R 2309/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apologistics and Mr Peikert.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.