Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2017 —  
Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

(Case T‑159/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark TRIPLE O NADA — Earlier EU figurative mark TRIPLE BINGO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

| 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 20, 51) |

| 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 para. 22) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Figurative marks TRIPLE O NADA and TRIPLE BINGO  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 23, 24, 26, 28, 50, 58, 60) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 27) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 29, 30, 33, 36) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark—Effect  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 57) |

| 7. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Scope—Absolute grounds for refusal invoked by the trade mark applicant—Not included  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7 and 8(1)(b))  (see para. 59) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 2605/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP and Metronia.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Metronia, SA to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)