Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:649
Date: 2018-10-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

summary manner before the Board of Appeal, in the context of the plea concerning the alleged misapplication of the Lego judgment, which does not raise the issue of intention to deceive. In addition, that claim was not substantiated by any evidence capable of showing that the intervener intended to deceive the public in a manner likely to damage the applicant, as required under the case-law. In that regard, it must be stated that it is common ground that the intervener is a former member of the band and, as such, is associated with the band in the mind of the public, which cannot in itself amount to proof of a deceptive intent on his part. Next, it must be pointed out that, in any event, every element of the tort of passing-off must be made out even if there is the intention to deceive the public (see paragraph 46 above). Lastly, the Board of Appeal dealt fully with the issue of the likelihood of misrepresentation, applying the relevant criteria summarised in paragraphs 24 and 30 above. 49 In the light of the foregoing, it cannot be successfully argued that the Board of Appeal failed to adjudicate on the applicant’s argument concerning ‘subjective deceptive intent’, nor that it failed to state the reasons for which it had not upheld that argument. 50 It follows that the present plea in law must be rejected as unfounded and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, and there is no need to adjudicate on the admissibility of the second head of claim, which seeks refusal of the application for registration of the trade mark applied for. Costs 51 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, he must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Mr Ian Paice to pay the costs. Collins Kancheva Barents Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 4 October 2018. E. Coulon A.M. Collins Registrar President * Language of the case: English.