Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2022 –  
Tigercat International v EUIPO – Caterpillar (Tigercat)

(Case T‑251/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0251_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Tigercat – Earlier EU figurative mark CAT – 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 20, 21, 85) |

| 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 – Word mark Tigercat and figurative mark CAT  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 32, 44-48, 52, 59, 60, 95, 96) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Scope  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94)  (see para. 22) |

| 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 – 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, 24, 28-30) |

| 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 33-35, 78) |

| 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 37, 38) |

| 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 – 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. 61) |

| 8. | 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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks  (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see para. 82) |

| 9. | 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 – Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 90, 91) |

| 10. | 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 – Coexistence of earlier marks on the market – Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 102-106) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Tigercat International Inc. to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0251_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 263, 5.7.2021](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2021:263:TOC).

[Top](#document1)