Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:697
Date: 2022-11-09
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2022 – Société Elmar Wolf v EUIPO – Fuxtec (Representation of the head of an animal) (Case T‑596/21) (1) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing a head – Earlier national figurative mark representing the head of a canine – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing the head of a canine – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion) 1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see paragraph 15) 2. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 19, 20, 51, 53, 54, 58) 3. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 28-30, 45) 4. 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 – Figurative mark representing a head and figurative mark representing the head of a canine (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 39, 41, 46, 47, 59, 63, 67) 5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Registration of a new trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 76(1)) (see paragraph 55) 6. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraph 65) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Société Elmar Wolf, since it has been unsuccessful, to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). 1 OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.