1. Judgement – 01/10/2025 – Eti v EUIPO – Dr. Oetker RO (Poof!…and done), Case T-651/24

– The case concerned proceedings for the invalidation of a trademark due to the risk of confusion;

– Eti Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ filed an application for invalidation of the word-figurative trademark  registered for goods in class 30 (including chocolate bars, sweets) and for services in class 35 (including retail services).

– The application for invalidation was filed due to the risk of confusion due to, among other things, the earlier word and figurative trademark  registered for goods in class 30 (including cookies and chocolates).

– The Cancellation Board of the EUIPO dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity.

– The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. It found that the figurative elements of the marks occupied an equivalent position to the verbal elements and that the verbal elements „poof” and „puf”, which were less distinctive, were visually more eye-catching than the other verbal elements. It found that the conflicting signs showed a low degree of visual similarity, a degree of phonetic similarity ranging from low to high, and a low degree of conceptual similarity.

– The CJEU dismissed the complaint. It pointed out that the terms „puf” and „poof” convey the idea of a food product with a fluffy consistency, thus referring to a characteristic of the goods and services in question, and that those elements therefore have a less distinctive character. He stated that there was no risk of confusion, pointing out that the elements „puf” and „poof” had only two letters in common: „p” and „f”, which differed in style, font, position and colour in each of these elements.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304739&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2128629

2. Judgment – 01/10/2025 – Group Pack v. EUIPO – Emil Lux (LUX 1991), Case T-566/24

– The case concerned opposition proceedings due to the risk of confusion.

– Group Pack sp. z o. o. filed a word-figurative trademark  for goods in class 6 (aluminum foil), 16 (including plastic bags) and 21 (including cleaning articles).

– Obi Group Sourcing GmbH filed an objection to the above-mentioned application due to the risk of confusion based on the word-figurative trademark  registered for goods and services in classes: 1, 3, 4, 6 (including metal materials), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 (including bags and packaging articles), 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (including cleaning articles), 22, 24, 25 and 26.

– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition.

– The Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal. It found that the goods covered by the trade mark applied for were identical to those in Classes 6, 16 and 21, that the conflicting trade marks had an average visual similarity and at least an average phonetic similarity, and that their conceptual comparison remained neutral.

– The CJEU dismissed the complaint, sharing the view of the Board of Appeal.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304738&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2128629

3. Judgment – 01/10/2025 – Siemens Healthineers v EUIPO – Sunware (teamplay), Case T-1175/23

– The case concerned proceedings for the invalidation of a trademark due to the risk of confusion.

– Sunware s.r.o. filed an application for invalidation of the word trademark teamplay registered for goods in class 9 (including data processing programs) and for services in class 42 (including database development).

– The application for invalidation was filed due to the risk of confusion and was based on the earlier word mark TEAMPLAY registered in the Czech Republic for goods in class 9 (computer software) and services in class 42 (including rental of computer software),

– The Cancellation Division granted the invalidity request in part, declaring the contested trademark invalid in respect of all goods covered by Class 9 and in respect of all services covered by Class 42, with the exception of „the production of statistics exclusively in the field of medical data and information”.

– Sunware was requested to explain the type of software sold under the earlier trademark, how it was supplied and how the earlier trademark was used in relation to that software.

– The Appeals Chamber upheld the appeal in part. It found that the invalidity application should be rejected not only in respect of the services of „creating statistics, exclusively in the field of medical data and information” in Class 42, but also in respect of the services of „creating and developing websites; all the aforesaid services exclusively in the field of medical data and information” in that class.

– The CJEU dismissed the complaint, finding that the Board of Appeal had correctly assessed the risk of confusion and the similarity of the individual goods and services.

Case details:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=304733&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2128629