Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 February 2018 –
Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)
(Case T‑45/17)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CK1 — Earlier EU figurative mark CK — 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 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 19, 53)
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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 21)
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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 25)
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 mark CK1 and figurative mark CK
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 33, 50, 51, 55-58)
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 — Composite mark — Determination of the dominant element or elements
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 34-38)
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 — Possibility of a visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 41)
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 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 54)
Re:
| Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 (Case R 2193/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Schmidt and Kwang Yang Motor. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs. |