Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2021 –  
Rotondaro v EUIPO – Pollini (COLLINI)

(Case T‑69/21)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark COLLINI – Earlier EU and national word marks POLLINI and STUDIO POLLINI – 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 19-23) |

| 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 27, 40) |

| 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 – Figurative mark COLLINI – Word marks POLLINI and STUDIO POLLINI  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 39, 50, 51, 59, 61, 64-66) |

| 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 43, 46, 47, 55) |

| 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 – 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 para. 45) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 63) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Need to determine that question, once raised by the applicant before the decision on the opposition  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))  (see para. 67) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2020 (Case R 2518/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pollini and Mr Rotondaro.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Carmine Rotondaro to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)