Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62018TJ0477

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 April 2019.
Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bottle and an arrow — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-477/18.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 –
Užstato sistemos administratorius v EUIPO — DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem (Representation of a bottle with an arrow)

(Case T‑477/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bottle and an arrow — Earlier EU figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — 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 — Criteria for assessment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 16, 17)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 27-29)

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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see para. 30)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark representing a bottle with an arrow — Figurative mark representing a can, a bottle and an arrow

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 49, 53-55)

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

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see para. 52)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 (Case R 2203/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem and Užstato sistemos administratorius.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Užstato sistemos administratorius VšĮ to pay the costs.
Top