Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2022 –  
bett1.de v EUIPO – XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)

(Case T‑537/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0537_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark BODY STAR – Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard – Earlier national word mark Bodyguard – Relative ground for refusal – 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 paragraphs 15, 16, 43, 44) |

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 18, 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks BODY STAR and Bodyguard  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 24-26, 30-32, 41, 42, 45, 50-53) |

| 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 27, 33) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 et R 1727/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed blankets; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24; |

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

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0537_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2021:422:TOC)

[Top](#document1)