Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:45
Date: 2019-01-31
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 – Pear Technologies v EUIPO — Apple (PEAR) (Case T‑215/17) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative trade mark PEAR — Earlier EU figurative trade mark depicting an apple — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) 1. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 16) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 17) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Degree of similarity required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see paras 20, 21) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see para. 22) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Figurative mark PEAR and figurative mark representing an apple (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 23, 52-54, 78-80) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Technologies. Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2017 (Case R 860/2016-5); 2. Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies Ltd; 3. Orders Apple Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by Pear Technologies.