Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 April 2020 –  
Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)

(Case T‑109/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — 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 — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Not included  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)  (see para. 32) |

| 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 43, 44, 52) |

| 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 mark TasteSense and word mark MultiSense  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 55-58, 82-84) |

| 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 77-80) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU  (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)  (see paras 90, 91) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)