Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2024 –  
ZB v EUIPO – Muhsinoglu (X ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T‑507/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0507_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ENERGY DRINK – Earlier EU figurative mark X Energy Drink – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Alteration of a decision of EUIPO – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))  (see paragraph 16) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Essential procedural requirement  (Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paragraphs 20, 22) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 33, 34, 76, 80, 84, 85) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraph 41) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 43, 45, 46) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative marks ENERGY DRINK and X Energy Drink  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 52, 61, 62, 64, 73, 87) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 53, 54) |

| 8. | Judicial proceedings – Costs – Intellectual property litigation – Recoverable costs – Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2))  (see paragraph 91) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders ZB, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay those incurred by Siyabend Goran Muhsinoglu before the General Court; |

| 3. | Declares that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0507_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) OJ C C/2023/219, 23.10.2023.

[Top](#document1)