Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2020:188
Date: 2020-05-13
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see paras 27, 28) 2. 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 para. 37) 3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 51-53) 4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Sign giving its holder the right to prohibit the use of a more recent trade mark — Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(4)(b); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 37) (see paras 66, 72, 74, 87) 5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Review by the competent bodies of OHIM and by the Court as to the national law applicable — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(4) and 72(1) and (2)) (see paras 67-71, 85) 6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided — Assessment by the Office of the correctness of the facts pleaded and the probative value of evidence submitted — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95) (see para. 73) 7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Word mark Peek and trade name Peek & Cloppenburg (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 94-101, 104, 108, 111) 8. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeals before the Boards of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Conditions (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1)) (see paras 121-123) 9. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeals before the Boards of Appeal — Stay of proceedings — Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Prima facie assessment of the chances of success of a counterclaim seeking a declaration of a right — Scope (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1)) (see paras 125, 127-130, 132) Re: Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 (Case R 115/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf). Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.