Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –X-cen-tek v EUIPO – Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)
(Case T‑847/19)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark PAX – Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX – Relative ground for refusal – Dominant element – No counteraction – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Application of the law ratione temporis)
1.      Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Procedural rules – Substantive rules – Distinction
(see para. 20)
2.      Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on – Flexible interpretation
(see para. 22)
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 – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 27, 28, 122, 123)
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 – Word mark PAX and figurative marks SPAX
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 30, 90, 117, 119, 125-128)
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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 40, 46, 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 – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 75, 76, 83-85, 101, 104)
7.      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 – Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 100)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.