EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
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.
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.