Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2023 –  
Chmielarz v EUIPO – Granulat (granulat)

(Case T‑557/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0557_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark granulat – International registration of the earlier figurative mark GRANULAT2000 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Direction issued to the Office – Precluded  (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))  (see paragraph 16) |

| 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 21, 56) |

| 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 – 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 paragraphs 23, 31) |

| 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 – 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 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 marks granulat and GRANULAT2000  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 32, 46, 52, 69, 74) |

| 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – 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 paragraphs 34, 35, 40) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 61-64) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Arkadiusz Chmielarz to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Granulat GmbH; |

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0557_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 418, 31.10.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:418:TOC).

[Top](#document1)