Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:371
Date: 2016-06-29
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 29 June 2016 1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal — Account taken, for the purposes of interpreting national law, of matters arising from legislation or national case-law not pleaded before OHIM — Lawfulness — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 65; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(d)) 2. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) 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 — Sign giving its holder the right to prohibit the use of a more recent trade mark — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)(b); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(d)) 4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4), and 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 19(2)(d), and 50(1), third subpara.) 5. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Proof of the acquisition, permanence and scope of the protection of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Evidence for establishing the content of the applicable national law — Aim — No need to produce the text of the legislation from an official source (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(d)) 6. 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 — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on — Verification of the content of national law — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) 1. The purpose of an action before the General Court is to review the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO as provided for in Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark. It is therefore not the Court’s function to re-evaluate the factual circumstances in the light of evidence which has been adduced for the first time before it. Admittedly, neither the parties nor the Court itself can be precluded from drawing on national legislation, case-law or academic writing for the purposes of interpreting national law to which EU law makes reference, where it is not alleged that the Board of Appeal failed to take the factual aspects of a specific national judgment into account, but rather reliance is placed on judgments or academic writing in support of a plea alleging that the Board of Appeal misapplied a provision of national law. The fact remains, however, that, in the context of an opposition based on the existence of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, documents containing national legislative provisions are not sources on which the Court can draw for the purposes of interpreting national law, but are evidence for establishing the content of the applicable national law for the purposes of Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. In so far as those documents were not produced by the applicant in the course of the administrative proceedings before the Office, they must be declared inadmissible. (see paras 19-21) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 26-28) 3. In applying the provisions of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, regard must be had, in particular, to the national rules relied on and to the judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned. On that basis, the opponent must establish that the sign in question falls within the scope of the law of the Member State relied on and that it allows use of a subsequent mark to be prohibited. Moreover, Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95 places on the opponent the burden of providing EUIPO not only with particulars showing that he satisfies the necessary conditions, in accordance with the national law which he is seeking to have applied, in order to be able to have the use of an EU trade mark prohibited by virtue of an earlier right, but also with particulars establishing the content of that law. It follows that, in the absence of any allegation or evidence to that effect submitted by the parties, EUIPO is under no obligation to gather of its own motion particulars about the applicable national law. (see paras 29, 33, 34) 4. In the context of an opposition based on the existence of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark, Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95 does not list, specifically and exhaustively, which documents are to be produced in support of the opposition. Therefore, in so far as that latter provision refers merely to the obligation to provide proof of the acquisition, permanence and scope of the protection of the earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, without providing any further specifics, the opponent is not deemed to be aware of the precise documents which he has to produce in support of its opposition. In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal’s discretion in taking into account facts and evidence adduced late laid down in Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 do not need to be exercised in a restrictive manner. A Board of Appeal which does not exercise, even restrictively, the discretion with which it is vested and justifies on that basis its refusal to take account of references to national law produced before it, therefore infringes Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the third subparagraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. (see paras 53, 55, 56, 59, 61) 5. In the context of an opposition based on the existence of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation No 2868/95 does not list, specifically and exhaustively, the evidence establishing the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 that an opponent relying on such a right should provide before EUIPO. Therefore, the relevant national legislation may be regarded as one piece of evidence proving the acquisition, permanence and the scope of the protection of an earlier right within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009. Nevertheless, neither Regulations Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 nor the case-law identify the manner in which the content of national legislation must be proven. In that regard, the elements of national law which the opponent must produce must enable EUIPO to identify correctly and unequivocally the applicable law. That information about the applicable legislation must enable EUIPO to understand and apply the content of that legislation, the conditions for obtaining the protection and the scope thereof, and enable the applicant to exercise his rights of defence. In order to achieve those objectives, the text of the legislation emanating from an official source is not indispensable. (see paras 58, 69, 70) 6. It is incumbent on the competent EUIPO bodies to assess the authority and scope of the particulars submitted by the applicant in order to establish the content of the rule of national law that he relies on. Since the application of national law can lead to a finding that there is a ground for refusing registration of an EU trade mark, it seems necessary for EUIPO to be able, before upholding the opposition to registration of such a trade mark, to ascertain the relevance of the evidence produced by the applicant with regard to the taking of evidence, which is incumbent upon it, concerning the content of that national law. Consequently, in circumstances in which EUIPO may be called upon to take account, in particular, of the national law of the Member State in which protection is given to the earlier mark on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based, it must — of its own motion and by whatever means considered appropriate — obtain information about the national law of the Member State concerned, where such information is necessary for the purposes of assessing the applicability of a ground for invalidity relied on before it and, in particular, for the purposes of assessing the accuracy of the facts adduced or the probative value of the documents submitted. That requirement to obtain of its own motion information about national law applies, if necessary, where EUIPO already has information relating to national law, either in the form of claims as to its meaning, or in the form of evidence submitted and whose probative value has been adduced. In that regard, EUIPO must use all the means available to it in connection with its power to verify in order to obtain information about the applicable national law and to carry out further research into the wording and scope of the provisions of national law relied on, in the light of the arguments submitted by the opponent, either of its own motion or by inviting the opponent to corroborate the information it submitted to EUIPO. (see paras 77-79, 82)