Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2019 –  
Brown Street Holdings v EUIPO — Enesan (FIGHT LIFE)

(Case T‑800/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FIGHT LIFE — Earlier EU word mark FIGHT FOR LIFE — 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

| 1. | 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 16, 17, 19) |

| 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 — Word marks FIGHT LIFE and FIGHT FOR LIFE  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 20, 25, 31, 36) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 23) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services — Perception by the relevant public of the importance of a product or service for the use of another product or service  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 28, 30) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Brown Street Holdings and Enesan.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2017 (Case R 36/2017-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition against the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Brown Street Holdings Ltd. |

[Top](#document1)