Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2018 –  
Cotécnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)

(Case T‑136/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark cotecnica MAXIMA — Earlier national figurative mark MAXIM Alimento Superpremium — 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, 74, 75, 78) |

| 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark—Determination of the dominant elements  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 22, 26-28, 52, 56, 71) |

| 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 marks cotecnica MAXIMA and MAXIM Alimento Superpremium  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 43, 51, 63, 79, 89) |

| 4. | EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see para. 49) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark—Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 76) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment—Coexistence of two marks on a given market—Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 84-86) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 (Case R 853/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mignini & Petrini and Cotécnica.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |

| 2. | Orders Cotécnica, SCCL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Mignini & Petrini SpA. |

[Top](#document1)