Court weighs in on nutrition rivals’ ‘Feed’ TM dispute
French meal-bar manufacturer loses dispute with US rival over ‘conceptually identical’ marks | US online sports nutrition brand succeeds in its opposition to the mark due to likelihood of confusion.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has rejected a meal-replacement manufacturer’s bid to annul a decision to throw out its trademark application.
Paris-headquartered Feed SA sought to cancel the decision made in November 2022 by the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
In July 2019, Feed applied to register an EU trademark with the EUIPO for the figurative sign ‘Feed.’, for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 32 and 43 of the Nice Agreement. The mark was styled in bold, including a full stop.
This included goods and services such as meal replacement bars; liquid, solid or powdered meal replacements; freeze-dried meals, non-medicinal meal replacements; energy drinks; and “nutritionally fortified beverages”. It also covered “meal planning services in digital form, accessible through the internet; and “meal replacement preparation’”.
US rival mark
A few months later, a notice of opposition to that registration was filed by Participant Sports, the “predecessor in law” to the intervener in the case, The Feed.com—an online retailer selling sports nutrition products aimed at athletes whose products include Huel.
The Colorado, US-based company owns the trademark ‘The Feed.’ which is also styled in bold, and also includes the full stop. This was registered in June 2014, to cover services in classes 35 and 39.
This registration includes online ordering services and online retail store services related to the sale of meal replacement foods, nutritional bars, gels, energy foods, coffee, energy drinks and drink powders, and supplements and beverages. It also includes non-food products such as creams and other accessories, as well as the provision of consumer product information relating to food or drink products.
Opposition upheld
The Feed’s opposition, filed in February 2020, was upheld two years later by the Opposition Division, which rejected the French company’s trademark application in its entirety.
In April 2022, the French firm’s appealed to the EUIPO, arguing that the division had erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
But the Board of Appeal dismissed this appeal based on its finding of a likelihood of confusion, adding that the two rival marks were “visually and phonetically similar to a high degree and were conceptually identical”.
Both the EUIPO and The Feed disputed the French company’s line of argument.
In its judgment published yesterday, January 31, the General Court rejected Feed’s application to annul the board’s decision, citing a judgment from July 2003: Laboratorios RTB v OHIM – Giorgio Beverly Hills (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS), T‑162/01, EU:T:2003:199, paragraphs 30 to 33.
The court dismissed the French firm’s action in its entirety and ordered it to pay costs.
Feed was represented by Vanessa Bouchara and Adèle Maier of Bouchara & Avocats; and The Feed.com was represented by Julien Lacker of French firm Gomis & Lacker—both of which are based in France.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
