Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2020:566
Date: 2020-11-25
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 – BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO – Tipiak (SADIA) (Case T‑310/19) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark SADIA – Earlier national word mark SAIDA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Principle of sound administration – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons) 1. Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Procedural rules – Immediate entry into force (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 20) 2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Procedural role of EUIPO – Right of EUIPO, although designated as the defendant, to support the applicant’s claims – Functional independence of Boards of Appeal and their members (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 178(2) and (3)) (see para. 22) 3. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 35, 36) 4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account (Council Regulation 207/2009) (see paras 45, 125) 5. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation 207/2009) (see para. 46) 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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53-55, 148) 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57) 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks SADIA and SAIDA (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 76, 127, 136, 142, 145, 147, 154, 155) 9. 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 (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 61, 62, 109, 139, 141) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1857/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tipiak and BRF Singapore Foods. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak; 3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.