62024TJ0277_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 March 2025 –People Against Dirty v EUIPO –Ningbo Future Houseware (ecovie)
(Case T‑277/24)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark ecovie – Earlier EU figurative and word marks ECOVER and earlier EU word mark ECOVER ESSENTIAL – International registration of an earlier figurative mark ecover – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))
(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 18, 19, 78)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark ecovie and word mark ECOVER
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 21, 29, 33, 34, 41, 42, 48-54, 61, 74-77, 83-87)
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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Level of attention of the public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 22, 27)
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 – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 32, 47)
6.
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 – Distinctive character of earlier mark – Criteria for assessment – 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 paragraph 73)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 March 2024 (Case R 1333/2023‑2);
2.
Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.