62019TJ0250_INF
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2022 –Tradición CZ v EUIPO – Rivero Argudo (TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L.)
(Case T‑250/19) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L. – Earlier EU word mark RIVERO CZ – 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 – 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, Art. 72(2))
(see paragraph 18)
2.
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 – Expiry of an earlier mark after the action had been brought before the General Court – Irrelevant
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2))
(see paragraph 19)
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 – Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 28, 29, 86, 87)
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 – 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 paragraphs 30, 96)
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 paragraph 33)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks TRADICIÓN CZ, S. L. and RIVERO CZ
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 43, 44, 63, 72, 79, 85, 97-99)
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 – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – 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 paragraphs 46, 47, 50-52, 71, 83)
8.
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 73)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 4 February 2019 (Case R 257/2018-2) in so far as it concerns ‘wholesaling and retailing in shops and via global computer networks of vinegars’ in Class 35 of the Nice Agreement of 15 June 1957 Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, as revised and amended;
2.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.
Orders Tradición CZ, SL, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Ms María Dolores Rivero Argudo each to bear their own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.