Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2024 –  
Drinks Prod v EUIPO – Wolff and Illg (IGISAN)

(Case T‑164/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0164_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark IGISAN – Earlier EU word mark IGNISAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Request that directions be issued to an institution – Precluded  (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))  (see paragraph 14) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 19, 20, 73, 77) |

| 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 – Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 21) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Level of attention of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 23, 28) |

| 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 – Figurative mark IGISAN and word mark IGNISAN  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 29, 48, 61, 65, 74, 83) |

| 6. | 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 30) |

| 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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 49-51, 59) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Drinks Prod SRL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Siegfried Wolff and Mr Matthias Illg. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0164_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 179, 22.5.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:179:TOC).

[Top](#document1)