Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2018 — Starbucks v EUIPO — Nersesyan (COFFEE ROCKS)

(Case T‑398/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark COFFEE ROCKS — Earlier EU figurative marks STARBUCKS COFFEE — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) 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, eighth recital and Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 16, 17, 69) |

| 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—Figurative marks COFFEE ROCKS and STARBUCKS COFFEE  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paras 18, 19, 60-66, 71, 72, 81-85) |

| 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 45-47) |

| 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—High distinctiveness of the earlier mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 70) |

| 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—Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services—Conditions—Similarity of the marks concerned—Degree of similarity required  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paras 76-79) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Starbucks Corp. and Ms Hasmik Nersesyan.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 May 2016 (Case R 559/2015-4); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)