EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022TJ0665

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2023.
SkinIdent AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10 – National trade mark and international registration of earlier word mark SKINIDENT – Earlier company name Skinident – Relative grounds for refusal – Absence of a likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Sector proximity – Application of national law by EUIPO – Right to be heard – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-665/22.

Court reports – general

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2023:704

 Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2023 –
SkinIdent v EUIPO – Beiersdorf (NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10)

(Case T‑665/22) ( 1 )

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10 – National trade mark and international registration of earlier word mark SKINIDENT – Earlier company name Skinident – Relative grounds for refusal – Absence of a likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Sector proximity – Application of national law by EUIPO – Right to be heard – Article 94(1) of Regulation 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

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

(see paragraphs 18, 19, 25, 26, 35, 36)

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 marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark

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

(see paragraphs 37, 38)

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 NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL and SKINIDENT

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

(see paragraphs 39, 47, 50, 51, 57-60, 64-66, 68)

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment – Earlier mark occupying a distinctive independent position in the trade mark sought

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

(see paragraphs 42-44, 48)

5. 

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Decisions of national authorities not binding on EU bodies

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)

(see paragraphs 45, 46)

6. 

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Conditions – Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(4))

(see paragraphs 71, 72)

7. 

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to elements in an annex – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paragraph 81)

8. 

EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings

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

(see paragraph 85)

9. 

EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Decisions of EUIPO – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), second sentence)

(see paragraphs 93, 94, 96)

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders SkinIdent AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Beiersdorf AG;

3. 

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs.


( 1 ) OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.

Top