Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 2023 –  
Puma v EUIPO – Herno (HERZO)

(Case T‑719/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TO0719_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(Action for annulment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark HERZO – Earlier EU figurative mark HERNO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

| 1. | 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 20, 21, 64) |

| 2. | 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Level of attention of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 23) |

| 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 – Word mark HERZO and figurative mark HERNO  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 27, 42, 53, 59, 63, 70) |

| 4. | 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 paragraph 30) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1))  (see paragraph 41) |

| 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 43, 48) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO's previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraph 74) |

Operative part

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

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TO0719_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 15, 16.1.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:015:TOC).

[Top](#document1)