Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2025 –  
Quality is Our Recipe v EUIPO – Granizados Maresme (Frosty)

(Case T‑168/24)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Frosty – Earlier national figurative mark FROSTY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Meaning – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 10(3))  (see paragraphs 17-19, 30-32) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Use during a five year period – Consideration of evidence concerning use outside of that period – Conditions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 10(3))  (see paragraph 54) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal – Calling into question of the accuracy of the content or of the evidential value of the evidence taken into account by the Board of Appeal – Whether permissible – Conditions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraph 75) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 84) |

| 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 paragraph 88) |

| 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 Frosty and FROSTY  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 103, 115, 120, 123) |

| 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 105, 109, 111, 113) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)