62019TJ0402_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2020 – Brillux v EUIPO – Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)
(Case T‑402/19)
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark Freude an Farbe – Earlier EU figurative mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe – Relative ground for refusal – 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 – 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 – Figurative marks Freude an Farbe and Glemadur Freude an Farbe
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 27-31, 46, 51, 52, 60-67, 71)
2.
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 34-36)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 (Case R 1434/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Synthesa Chemie and Brillux.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Brillux GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.