This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TJ0643
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016.
Red Lemon Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion.
Case T-643/14.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016.
Red Lemon Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion.
Case T-643/14.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 —
Red Lemon v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
(Case T‑643/14)
‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark ABTRONIC — Earlier EU word mark TRONIC — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion’
|
1. |
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of EUIPO — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 15) |
|
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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 50, 51, 63) |
|
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29) |
|
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks ABTRONIC and TRONIC (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 62-65) |
|
5. |
EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see paras 66, 67) |
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2014 (Case R 1899/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Red Lemon Inc.
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Red Lemon Inc. to pay the costs. |