Court rules on EU trade mark opposition

Background

The General Court of the European Union recently handed down a judgment in the case of People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd v EUIPO, Ningbo Future Houseware Co. Ltd, concerning a trade mark opposition. The case revolved around the registration of a trade mark by Ningbo Future Houseware Co. Ltd, which was opposed by People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd.

Trade Mark Application and Opposition

On 7 March 2022, Ningbo Future Houseware Co. Ltd filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to register a trade mark for various goods in Classes 21, 22, and 24. The goods included items such as dishcloths, feather-dusters, and textile napkins. People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd opposed this registration, citing earlier marks including the EU word mark ECOVER.

Grounds for Opposition

The opposition was based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits registration of a trade mark if there is a likelihood of confusion with an earlier trade mark. The Opposition Division initially rejected the opposition, leading People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd to appeal the decision.

Board of Appeal's Decision

On 20 March 2024, the Second Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The Board considered factors such as the visual and phonetic similarities and the distinctiveness of the earlier marks.

General Court's Judgment

The General Court annulled the Board of Appeal's decision, finding that the Board had erred in its assessment. The Court held that the Board underestimated the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks and incorrectly assessed the distinctive character of the earlier mark as below average.

Assessment of Likelihood of Confusion

The Court emphasised that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors. It found that the goods were assumed to be identical and that the earlier mark had an average level of distinctiveness, contrary to the Board's findings.

Impact on Trade Mark Law

This judgment highlights the importance of a comprehensive assessment of the likelihood of confusion in trade mark cases. It underscores the necessity for EUIPO to consider all aspects of similarity and distinctiveness in its decisions.

Conclusion

The General Court's ruling is significant for trade mark law practitioners, as it clarifies the standards for assessing likelihood of confusion and the role of distinctive character in opposition proceedings.

Learn More

For more insights into trade mark law and opposition proceedings, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.