Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:798
Date: 2019-11-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 November 2019 – K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum) (Case T‑527/18) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark tec.nicum — Earlier national figurative mark TECNIUM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court) 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 — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of EUIPO — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2)) (see para. 17) 2. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Meaning — Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Recital 24 and Art. 47(2) and (3); Commission Delegated Regulation 2017/1430, Art. 10(3)) (see para. 22) 3. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and scope of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 47(2) and (3)) (see paras 23-25) 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 — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 44, 103) 5. 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 50, 52) 6. 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 marks tec.nicum and TECNIUM (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 65, 82, 102, 106) 7. 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 55) 8. 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 — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 66-70) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2427/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Tecnium and K.A. Schmersal Holding. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.