Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2024 –  
L’Oréal v EUIPO – Samar’t Pharma (BI blue pigment)

(Case T‑180/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0180_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark BI blue pigment – Earlier EU figurative mark Bi.cell – 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 identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 15-17, 58, 65) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 20, 21, 25-27, 36, 37, 50) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative marks BI blue pigment and Bi.cell  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 38-40, 46, 52, 57, 63, 64, 66, 67) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Similarity between the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or phonetic similarities – Conditions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 62) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0180_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 179, 22.5.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:179:TOC).

[Top](#document1)