EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TJ0106
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017.
zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO — Earlier EU figurative mark zero — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-106/16.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017.
zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO — Earlier EU figurative mark zero — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-106/16.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2017 —
zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)
(Case T‑106/16)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO — Earlier EU figurative mark zero — 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 17, 18, 40, 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. 19) |
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 ZIRO and zero (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 23, 36, 46, 50, 55) |
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 paras 22) |
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25) |
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between zero Holding and Mr Hemming.
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5); |
2. |
Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |