This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CJ0182
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017.
Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) –– Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons.
Case C-182/16 P.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017.
Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) –– Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons.
Case C-182/16 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica v EUIPO
(Case C‑182/16 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons)
|
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 para. 24) |
|
2. |
Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 31-33) |
|
3. |
Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 44) |
|
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 58, 59) |
Operative part
|
1. |
Dismisses the appeal; |
|
2. |
Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.