This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TJ0033
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2023.
Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA – Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-33/22.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2023.
Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA – Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-33/22.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2023:316
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2023 –
Vallegre v EUIPO – Joseph Phelps Vineyards (PORTO INSÍGNIA)
(Case T‑33/22) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PORTO INSÍGNIA – Earlier EU word mark INSIGNIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 19, 69, 74, 80) |
2. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 24, 25) |
3. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks PORTO INSÍGNIA et INSIGNIA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 26, 31, 44, 50, 59, 64, 65, 70, 73, 79, 81) |
4. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Wine sector (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 32, 48, 49, 55-57, 63) |
5. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 34, 45) |
6. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 35, 36) |
7. |
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Pleas in law (Art. 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paragraph 42) |
8. |
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paragraph 46) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.