Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:776
Date: 2022-12-07
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2022 – Puma v EUIPO – Vaillant (Puma) (Case T‑623/21) (1) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Puma – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Aim (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paragraph 19) 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paragraphs 20-23, 41, 67, 68, 80) 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paragraphs 27, 29, 36) 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Word mark Puma and figurative mark Puma (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paragraphs 38, 43, 52, 59, 77, 100, 114, 120, 122) 5. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits – Limited to manifest errors of assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see paragraph 42) 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity of the marks concerned – Degree of similarity required (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and 7(5)) (see paragraphs 45, 46) 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or in the European Union – Concept – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paragraphs 53, 61) 8. 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 (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see paragraph 95) 9. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paragraph 107) 10. 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 stringent and full examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see paragraphs 108-110) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.