Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2023 – CrossFit v EUIPO – Pitk Pelotas (CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT)

(Case T‑506/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0506_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT – Earlier EU word marks and international registration of a word mark CROSSFIT – Earlier EU word mark CROSS – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Non-similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation 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) |

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, recital 11 and Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 21-23, 46-49, 63) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services  Figurative mark CROSSWOD EQUIPMENT and word marks CROSSFIT and CROSS (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and (5)  (see paragraphs 32-34, 50-52, 69, 72, 93, 100-102) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paragraph 78) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paragraph 79) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or in the European Union – Concept – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paragraphs 89-92) |

Operative part

The Court

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

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

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0506_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 389, 10.10.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:389:TOC).

[Top](#document1)