Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 30 January 2018 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a member of the cat family jumping to the right)

(Case T‑113/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 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—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 23, 25) |

| 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 29, 30) |

| 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 representing a member of the cat family jumping to the right and figurative mark representing a member of the cat family jumping to the left  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 36, 55, 60) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 51-53) |

| 5. | 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 54) |

| 6. | 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—Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark—Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 57) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 2953/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Slazengers and Arctic Cat.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Arctic Cat Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |

[Top](#document1)