Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 —  
Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO — Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)

(Case T‑189/16)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CReMESPRESSO — Earlier international word mark CREMESSO — Allusive element — Interdependence of criteria — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

| 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 16, 75) |

| 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 paras 24, 25) |

| 3. | EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Relative grounds for invalidity—Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Figurative mark CReMESPRESSO and word mark CREMESSO  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a))  (see paras 38, 39, 58, 66, 73, 87, 88) |

| 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 40, 48, 49, 52) |

| 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—Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 45) |

| 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—Degree of distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark—Not included  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 74) |

| 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. 80) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs—Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 82) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2823/2014-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund and Luigi Lavazza.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2823/2014-4), in so far as the Board of Appeal upheld the action brought by Luigi Lavazza SpA and partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division with respect to the following goods: ‘Electric ice crushers’ and ‘Ice cream makers, ice cream machines, but also coffee machines’ in Classes 7 and 11, covered by the mark at issue; |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO and Luigi Lavazza to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund. |

[Top](#document1)