Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 December 2021 –
Team Beverage v EUIPO – Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung (Team Beverage)
(Case T‑359/20)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Team Beverage – Earlier EU word mark TEAM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))
(see paras 23, 24)
2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see para. 31)
3. EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant – Possibility of submitting the request for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2))
(see para. 40)
4. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Boards of Appeal – Stay of proceedings – Conditions
(Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 71(1))
(see paras 48-50, 52, 55)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 61, 62, 104, 111-115)
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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 64)
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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 66)
8. 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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 69, 70, 72-76, 95, 96)
9. 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 Team Beverage and TEAM
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 81, 88, 89, 110, 116-119)
10. 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 EU bodies
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see para. 87)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 (Case R 2727/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung and Team Beverage.
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs. |