Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:705
Date: 2017-10-06
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Portugal

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Abstract statement – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para, and 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 177(1)(d)) (see paras 20, 21) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 36) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 42) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark BERG OUTDOOR and word marks BERGHAUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 60, 61, 65-69, 71-73) 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 59) 6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para 63) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 (Case R 153/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Berghaus and SDSR Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO and the intervener.