Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TJ0418

    Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018.
    Eduard Meier GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
    EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Safari Club — Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
    Case T-418/17.

     Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 –
    Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club)

    (Case T‑418/17)

    (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Safari Club — Earlier national figurative mark WS Walk Safari — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — 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, 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 — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union

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

    (see para. 19)

    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 — Determination of the dominant elements(s)

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

    (see paras 22, 24-26, 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed

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

    (see paras 23, 36)

    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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character

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

    (see para. 27)

    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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark Safari Club and figurative mark WS Walk Safari

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

    (see paras 37, 45, 46, 50, 53, 54, 60-66)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Calzaturificio Elisabet and Eduard Meier.

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1. 

    Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 May 2017 (Case R 1158/2016-4), in so far as it upheld the opposition to registration of the EU word mark Safari Club for the goods ‘game bags’ and ‘clothing for hunting, clothing and hunting boots’;

    2. 

    Dismisses the remainder of the action;

    3. 

    Orders each party to bear its own costs.

    Top