Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2022 –  
Kalita and Haas v EUIPO – Kitzbühel Tourismus (Representation of two animals)

(Case T‑206/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0206_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark representing two animals – Earlier EU figurative mark representing an animal – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))  (see para. 16) |

| 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 – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 20-23, 25, 89, 90) |

| 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 27, 28) |

| 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 – Figurative mark representing two animals and figurative mark representing one animal  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 43, 54, 71, 86, 88, 102) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Coexistence of earlier marks – Recognition of an EU trade mark as having a certain degree of distinctiveness  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 59) |

| 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 – Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment – Taking into consideration relevant evidence to establish reputation  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 67, 78, 79) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 February 2021 (Case R 863/2021-1); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Oliver Kalita and Mr Christian Haas; |

| 3. | Orders Kitzbühel Tourismus, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Mr Kalita and Mr Haas. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0206_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 217, 7.6.2021](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2021:217:TOC).

[Top](#document1)