Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:943
Date: 2025-11-18
Language of the case: English

Appeal brought on 20 June 2025 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2025 in Case T-242/24, Versiontech v EUIPO (Case C-411/25 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája, D. Hanf and D. Stoyanova-Valchanova, acting as Agents) Other parties to the proceedings: Versiontech, Inc., Verizon Trademark Services LLC Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgement under appeal; order Versiontech to bear its own costs and those incurred by EUIPO; reject Versiontech’s request to alter the decision at issue. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the appeal, the Appellant relies on a single ground, alleging that the judgment under appeal is contrary to Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 1 in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and Article 1(2) of Regulation 207/2009 2 , which raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The judgment under appeal infringes Article 72(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 to the extent and in that it dismisses, by way of alteration of the decision of the Board of Appeal at issue, the appeal brought against the decision of EUIPO’s Cancellation Division rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested EU trade mark, based on a finding of absence in the European Union of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 with the earlier European Union trade mark, which the General Court made in the absence of any position in fact or in law adopted by the Board of Appeal in the decision at issue with regard to the non-German speaking part of the relevant public in the European Union. By altering the Board of Appeal’s decision based on a misconception of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 1(2) of Regulation 207/2009 – provisions which necessarily required a finding of absence of likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks to be established in the perception of the entirety of the relevant public in the European Union – the judgment under appeal disregards that Article 72(3) of Regulation 2017/1001 does not confer to the General Court the power to take in lieu of the Board of Appeal a decision on the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal on the basis of matters of facts or of law which have not been considered and examined by the Board of Appeal and on which it has not taken a position in the decision whose legality is challenged before the General Court. The appeal raises an issue of horizontal and constitutional nature which concerns the structure of the system provided for by the EU legislature to ensure a comprehensive, proper, effective and multi-level legal protection against EUIPO decisions in trade mark and design matters. ____________ 1 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1). 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).