Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)

(Case T‑407/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology — Earlier EU figurative marks representing claws — Relative grounds for refusal — No similarity of the signs — No likelihood of confusion — No connection between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

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 — 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 para. 28)

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 — Figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology — Figurative marks representing claws (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 31, 39, 45, 46, 58, 59)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark — Determination of dominant component(s) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 38)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Figurative marks — Phonetic comparison (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 55)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 65, 66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1028/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Hot-Can Intellectual Property.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;