Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2018 –  
Staropilsen v EUIPO — Pivovary Staropramen (STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN)

(Case T‑556/17)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN — Earlier EU and national word marks STAROPRAMEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) 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 15, 16, 46) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Determination of the relevant public—Attention level of the public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 19) |

| 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 30, 34) |

| 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 STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN and word marks STAROPRAMEN  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a))  (see paras 50, 51) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2017 (Case R 236/2017-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Pivovary Staropramen and Staropilsen.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Staropilsen s. r. o. to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)