Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015TJ0575

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2016.
Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AFRODITA COSMETICS — Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-575/15.

Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2016 — Kozmetika Afrodita v EUIPO — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)

(Case T‑575/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark AFRODITA COSMETICS — Earlier national word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and earlier national figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL — 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 21-23, 58)

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 — Figurative mark AFRODITA COSMETICS — Word mark EXOTIC AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL and figurative mark AFRODITA MYSTIC MUSK OIL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 60-64)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-32, 41)

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 — 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. 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2015 (Case R 2578/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Núñez Martín and Ms Machado Montesinos and, on the other, Kozmetika Afrodita.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. to pay the costs.

Top