Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2020 –  
Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (SAKKATTACK)

(Case T‑851/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark SAKKATTACK – Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 paras 26, 27, 62, 94) |

| 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 para. 28) |

| 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 – Criteria for assessment – Figurative mark SAKKATTACK – Word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 29, 38-40, 42-45, 49, 50, 56-59, 69, 72, 79, 80, 93, 98, 106-110) |

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 31) |

| 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 52) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – EUIPO's previous decision-making practice – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paras 102, 103) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU  (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art 94(1), first sentence)  (see para. 124) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 2560/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Body Attack Sports Nutrition and Ms Sakkari.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)