Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2022 –  
Moio v EUIPO – Paul Hartmann (moio.care)

(Case T‑276/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0276_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark moio.care – Earlier EU word mark Molicare – 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, 91, 97) |

| 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 20, 21) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2))  (see para. 32) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark moio.care and word mark Molicare  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 34, 44, 69, 76, 88, 99) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 35) |

| 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 – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 49-51, 62, 66) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 65) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Moio GmbH to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0276_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2021:278:TOC)

[Top](#document1)