Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2023 –  
Sport1 v EUIPO – SFR (SFR SPORT 1)

(Case T‑141/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0141_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark SFR SPORT 1 – Earlier national and international figurative marks sport1 – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Distinctive character acquired through use – Interdependence between factors)

| 1. | 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, recital 11, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 16, 38, 39) |

| 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 – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the European Union  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 17) |

| 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 – Figurative marks SFR SPORT 1 and sport1  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 40-45, 48-51) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of a non-registered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Conditions – Interpretation in the light of EU law – Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(4))  (see paragraph 53) |

| 5. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to other documents not annexed to the application – Inadmissibility  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see paragraph 58) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Partially annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 December 2021 (Case R 2329/2020-1), in so far as the Board of Appeal found that there was no likelihood of confusion with regard to the services covered by the mark applied for which are referred to in paragraphs 42 to 44 and 52 to 61 of that decision; |

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sport1 GmbH; |

| 4. | Orders Société française du radiotéléphone – SFR to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0141_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 191, 10.5.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:191:TOC).

[Top](#document1)