Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2017 — For Tune v EUIPO — Simplicity trade (opus AETERNATUM)

(Case T‑815/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark opus AETERNATUM — Earlier EU word mark OPUS — 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 22, 23, 77) |

| 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 paras 25, 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—Figuartive mark opus AETERNATUM and word mark OPUS  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 34, 46, 49, 50, 72, 79-82) |

| 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 of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 35-37, 43) |

| 5. | EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 55) |

| 7. | 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. 71) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2016 (Case R 152/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Simplicity trade and For Tune.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders For Tune sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)