Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2023 –  
Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachfolger v EUIPO – Bit Beauty (ayuna LESS IS BEAUTY)

(Case T‑490/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0490_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark ayuna LESS IS BEAUTY – Earlier EU word mark AJONA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – 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 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 17, 18, 88) |

| 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 24, 36) |

| 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 – Figurative mark ayuna LESS IS BEAUTY and word mark AJONA  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 32, 40, 53, 63, 83, 97, 98) |

| 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 marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 41, 42, 52, 57, 59) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Proof that a mark is well known – Point in time to be taken into consideration  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 71, 72) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Probative value of the evidence – Opinion poll  (see paragraph 77) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs – Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 93, 94) |

| 8. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2) and (3))  (see paragraph 101) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachfolger GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0490_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 368, 26.9.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:368:TOC).

[Top](#document1)