Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020TJ0368

    Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2021.
    Smiley Miley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
    EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark MILEY CYRUS – Earlier EU figurative mark CYRUS – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
    Case T-368/20.

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2021:372

     Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –
    Smiley Miley v EUIPO – Cyrus Trademarks (MILEY CYRUS)

    (Case T‑368/20)

    (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark MILEY CYRUS – Earlier EU figurative mark CYRUS – 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 – Criteria for assessment

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

    (see paras 17-19)

    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. 20)

    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 – Composite mark

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

    (see paras 27, 39, 52-54)

    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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed – Distinctive character of a first name and a surname

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

    (see paras 32-34)

    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 – Word mark MILEY CYRUS and figurative mark CYRUS

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

    (see paras 35, 38, 45-47, 57, 59, 63, 65)

    6. 

    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 – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions

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

    (see para. 60)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 2520/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Trademarks and Smiley Miley.

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1. 

    Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 April 2020 (Case R 2520/2018-4);

    2. 

    Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

    Top