Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020TJ0673

    Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 2021.
    Celler Lagravera, SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
    EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cíclic – Earlier EU word mark CYCLIC – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
    Case T-673/20.

    Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2021:591

     Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 2021 –
    Celler Lagravera v EUIPO – Cyclic Beer Farm (Cíclic)

    (Case T‑673/20)

    (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Cíclic – Earlier EU word mark CYCLIC – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 20-23)

    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

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see para. 25)

    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 between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 29, 34)

    4. 

    EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits – Limited to manifest errors of assessment

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))

    (see para. 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 – Criteria for assessment

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 37, 45, 46)

    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 – Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see para. 42)

    7. 

    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 mark CÍCLIC and word mark CYCLIC

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 43, 44, 47, 48, 50)

    8. 

    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 – Criteria

    (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see para. 49)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 August 2020 (Case R 465/2020-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Cyclic Beer Farm and Celler Lagravera.

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1. 

    Dismisses the action;

    2. 

    Orders Celler Lagravera, SLU to pay the costs.

    Top