62024TJ0332_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2025 –Karneolis v EUIPO – Match Group (KinkySwipe)
(Case T‑332/24)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark KinkySwipe – Earlier national word mark SWIPE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Request that directions be issued to an institution – Not permissible
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraph 13)
2.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 16, 17)
3.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services concerned – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 24, 26)
4.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks KinkySwipe and SWIPE
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 30, 37, 42-51, 62, 64, 65, 70, 86)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 31, 36, 38, 61, 63)
6.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraphs 52-54)
7.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Coexistence of earlier marks – Recognition of a national mark as having a certain degree of distinctiveness
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraph 74)
8.
EU trade mark – Effects of the EU trade mark – Rights conferred by a trade mark – Right to prohibit the use of the mark – Use of an identical or similar sign covering identical or similar products or services – Likelihood of confusion with the mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 9(1) and (2))
(see paragraphs 83, 84)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Karneolis LTD to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Match Group, LLC;
3.
Declares that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.