Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 –  
Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)

(Case T‑491/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Meatlove — Earlier EU word mark carnilove — 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 — 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 — Distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark — Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 17, 18, 66-68) |

| 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 para. 20) |

| 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 — Word marks Meatlove and carnilove  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 24, 25, 29-34, 71, 72) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 27, 28) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 29) |

| 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 35, 36, 38) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vafo Praha and Ms Rutzinger-Kurpas.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vafo Praha s.r.o.; |

| 3. | Orders Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas to bear her own costs. |

[Top](#document1)