EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TJ0787
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2023.
UniSkin ApS v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild – Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods and services – Distinctive character of the earlier mark – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-787/21.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2023.
UniSkin ApS v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild – Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods and services – Distinctive character of the earlier mark – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-787/21.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2023:56
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2023 –
UniSkin v EUIPO – Unicskin (UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild)
(Case T‑787/21) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild – Earlier national figurative mark UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods and services – Distinctive character of the earlier mark – Similarity of the signs – 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 paragraphs 15, 16, 75) |
|
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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 19, 32) |
|
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 UNISKIN by Dr. Søren Frankild and UNICSKIN YOUR EFFECTIVE SOLUTION (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 33, 34, 45, 46, 52, 58, 67, 76) |
|
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 36, 56) |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders UniSkin ApS to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.