Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –  
Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)

(Case T‑239/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ENCANTO — Earlier national word mark BELCANTO — 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 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, 19, 46) |

| 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 — Attention level of the public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 20) |

| 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. 22) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 24, 27, 30) |

| 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. 26) |

| 6. | EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see para. 36) |

| 7. | Action for annulment — Pleas in law — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law  (see para. 49) |

| 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 — Figurative mark ENCANTO and word mark BELCANTO  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 50, 51) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 (Case R 392/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nordbrand Nordhausen and Vinos de Arganza.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Vinos de Arganza, SL, to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)