Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 January 2018.Gerd Brunner v European Union Intellectual Property Office.European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).Case T-367/16.

Judgment // 25/01/2018 // 2 min read
bookmark 62 citations

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 January 2018 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)

(Case T‑367/16)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE — Earlier EU trade mark HOLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now 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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Criteria

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 17-19, 31)

  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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Attention level of the public

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 20, 21)

  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—Figurative mark H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE and word mark HOLY

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 27, 43, 47, 50, 80, 85, 90, 91, 101-108)

  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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Complementary nature of the goods or services

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 32, 41)

  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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 51-53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between CBM and Mr Brunner.

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the action;

  2. Orders Gerd Brunner to pay the costs.

Trade marks