This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TJ0516
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 April 2022.
Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark QUEST 9 – Earlier EU word mark QUEX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Articles 95 and 97 of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-516/20.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 April 2022.
Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark QUEST 9 – Earlier EU word mark QUEX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Articles 95 and 97 of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-516/20.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:227
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 April 2022 –
Mandelay v EUIPO – Qx World (QUEST 9)
(Case T‑516/20) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark QUEST 9 – Earlier EU word mark QUEX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Articles 95 and 97 of Regulation 2017/1001)
1. |
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see paras 17, 18) |
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 – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 35, 52, 114, 115) |
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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 36, 37, 39) |
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 – Word marks QUEST 9 and QUEX (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 51, 53, 54, 66, 109, 118) |
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 – Coexistence of earlier marks – Recognition of an EU trade mark as having a certain degree of distinctiveness (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 63) |
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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 67, 75, 79, 106) |
7. |
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see paras 84, 85) |
8. |
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 135-138) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by QX WORLD Kft. |
( 1 ) OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.