General Court annuls EUIPO decision on trade mark opposition

General Court annuls EUIPO decision on trade mark opposition

The General Court of the European Union delivered a significant ruling in the case of People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd v EUIPO, annulling a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding a trade mark opposition. The case involved a dispute over the registration of a trade mark by Ningbo Future Houseware Co. Ltd, which People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd opposed, citing a likelihood of confusion with its own marks.

The contested decision by the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO, dated 20 March 2024, had dismissed the opposition filed by People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd. The opposition was based on the argument that the mark applied for by Ningbo Future Houseware Co. Ltd was too similar to the earlier marks held by People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd, including the EU word mark 'ECOVER' and other related marks.

People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd argued that the Board of Appeal erred in assessing the likelihood of confusion, particularly in its evaluation of the relevant public, the visual and phonetic similarities of the signs, and the distinctive character of the earlier marks. The General Court found that the Board of Appeal had indeed made errors in its assessment, particularly by underestimating the visual and phonetic similarities between the marks and the distinctive character of the 'ECOVER' mark.

The Court highlighted that the earlier mark 'ECOVER' had an average level of inherent distinctive character, contrary to the Board of Appeal's finding of below-average distinctiveness. The Court also noted that the prefix 'eco' in both marks, despite being descriptive, contributed to the overall similarity, given its position at the beginning of the marks.

In its judgment, the General Court emphasised the importance of considering the perception of the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and observant. The Court concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks, given the identity of the goods and the average level of attention of the relevant public.

The Court's decision to annul the Board of Appeal's ruling underscores the necessity for a thorough and balanced assessment of all relevant factors in trade mark opposition proceedings. This judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role that the distinctive character of a mark and the similarities between competing marks play in determining the likelihood of confusion.

The ruling also addressed procedural issues, noting that the Board of Appeal should have considered the distinctive character of the earlier mark as an issue of law, even if not contested by the parties. The General Court ordered EUIPO to bear its own costs and those of People Against Dirty Holdings Ltd, including costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Learn More

For more insights into trade mark law and the factors influencing likelihood of confusion, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.