Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2020.X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark PAX – Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX – Relative ground for refusal – Dominant element – No counteraction – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Application of the law ratione temporis.Case T-847/19.

Judgment // 05/10/2020 // 3 min read
bookmark 12 citations

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –X-cen-tek v EUIPO – Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)

(Case T‑847/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark PAX – Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX – Relative ground for refusal – Dominant element – No counteraction – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Application of the law ratione temporis)

  1. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Procedural rules – Substantive rules – Distinction

(see para. 20)

  1. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on – Flexible interpretation

(see para. 22)

  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 27, 28, 122, 123)

  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 – Word mark PAX and figurative marks SPAX

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

(see paras 30, 90, 117, 119, 125-128)

  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 – Criteria for assessment

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

(see paras 40, 46, 57)

  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 – Composite mark

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

(see paras 75, 76, 83-85, 101, 104)

  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 – Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark

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

(see para. 100)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the action;

  2. Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Trade marks