Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 October 2021 –  
St. Hippolyt v EUIPO – Raisioaqua (Vital like nature)

(Case T‑351/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Vital like nature – Earlier EU figurative mark VITAL – 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 18-20, 24, 25, 30, 35, 36, 41, 45, 71) |

| 2. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Application not sufficiently clear and precise – Inadmissibility  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see para. 31) |

| 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 marks Vital like nature and Vital  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 46-48, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 74-76) |

| 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 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 62-65) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1279/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Raisioaqua and St. Hippolyt Holding.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)