Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO

(Case C‑819/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Criteria for assessing distinctive character — Phonetic similarity of the signs at issue — Figurative mark NUUNA)

| 1. | Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted  (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 3. | Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 4. | Appeal — Grounds — Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded — Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure  (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181)  (see paras 5, 6) |

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |

| 2. | Next design+produktion GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)