Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2022 –  
SFD v EUIPO – Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)

(Case T‑35/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0035_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION – Earlier EU word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 18-20, 80, 86) |

| 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. 22) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 29) |

| 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 35, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 58) |

| 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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 47, 63) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION and word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 66, 71, 75, 79, 87-89) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 85) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders SFD S.A. to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0035_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2021:098:TOC)

[Top](#document1)