Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 May 2024 –  
Korkmaz v EUIPO – Intersnack Deutschland (CETOS)

(Case T‑308/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0308_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark CETOS – Earlier national word mark CHITOS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant – Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Not included  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Arts 8(2) and 10(1))  (see paragraph 19) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 26, 27, 61) |

| 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 – Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 28) |

| 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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 34, 39, 41) |

| 5. | 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 – Word marks CETOS and CHITOS  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 42, 57, 63, 64) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraphs 66, 67) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Elif Korkmaz and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0308_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 252, 17.7.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:252:TOC).

[Top](#document1)