Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 – Aldi v EUIPO – Sky (SKYLITe)

(Case T-736/15)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark skylite – Earlier EU word mark SKY – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

| 1. | EU trade mark–Observations of third parties and opposition–Examination of the opposition–Proof of use of the earlier mark–Genuine use–Meaning–Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(2))  (see paras 20, 35) |

| 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–Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 45, 118) |

| 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–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. 46) |

| 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–Figurative mark skylite and word mark SKY  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 50, 120-123, 127) |

| 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–Similarity between the goods or services in question–Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 51) |

| 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–Similarity of the marks concerned–Criteria for assessment–Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 74, 75, 80) |

| 7. | 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–Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 79) |

| 8. | 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–Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 83) |

| 9. | 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 dominant component(s)  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 84) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2015 (Case R 2771/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and Aldi.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)