62022TJ0557_INF
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2023 –Chmielarz v EUIPO – Granulat (granulat)
(Case T‑557/22) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark granulat – International registration of the earlier figurative mark GRANULAT2000 – 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 – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Direction issued to the Office – Precluded
(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))
(see paragraph 16)
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 21, 56)
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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 23, 31)
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 – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraph 28)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative marks granulat and GRANULAT2000
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 32, 46, 52, 69, 74)
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 – 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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 34, 35, 40)
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 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 61-64)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Mr Arkadiusz Chmielarz to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Granulat GmbH;
3.
Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 418, 31.10.2022.