Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2020 –  
Katjes Fassin v EUIPO – Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)

(Case T‑616/19)

(Action for annulment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for European Union word mark WONDERLAND – Earlier Benelux word mark WONDERMIX – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

| 1. | Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)  (see paras 16, 63) |

| 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 24, 58, 59) |

| 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 – 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 paras 26, 29, 31, 32, 35) |

| 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 – Word mark WONDERLAND and WONDERMIX  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 36, 38, 42, 45, 46, 57, 62) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 37) |

| 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 – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 39, 44, 53, 56) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 (Case R 2164/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium and Katjes Fassin.

Operative part

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |

| 2. | Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium BV. |

[Top](#document1)