Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2020 –  
Gothe and Kunz v EUIPO – Aldi Einkauf (FAIR ZONE)

(Case T‑589/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark FAIR ZONE – Earlier EU word mark FAIR – Relative ground for refusal – 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 earlier identical or similar mark registered for 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 paras 30, 63, 64) |

| 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 – 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 para. 31) |

| 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 33) |

| 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 – Word mark FAIR ZONE and figurative mark FAIR  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 34, 47, 61, 78, 79) |

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

| 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 – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 38, 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 39) |

| 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Weak distinctive character of the dominant element  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 40, 41) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 July 2019 (Case R 2253/2018-4), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Aldi Einkauf and, on the other hand, Mr Gothe and Mr Kunz.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |

| 2. | Mr Oliver Gothe and Mr Martin Kunz are ordered to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)