Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:103
Date: 2017-02-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

summary of that reasoning which appears, in particular, in paragraphs 14, 33, 35, 38 to 40, 57 to 60, 64, 65 and 78 above and which enabled the applicant to prepare its action. The applicant’s claim alleging that there is a lack of proper reasoning must therefore be rejected. 87 In view of all of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Board of Appeal did not err in finding, in the light of the interdependence between the factors at issue, that there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue. 88 Consequently, the single plea in law put forward by the applicant must be rejected as unfounded and the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 89 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. 90 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener. 91 Furthermore, the intervener has claimed that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs that the intervener incurred ‘in the course of the [EUIPO] ... proceedings’, that is to say also those incurred in the opposition proceedings. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure, costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal are to be regarded as recoverable costs. However, that does not apply to costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Opposition Division. Accordingly, the intervener’s request that the applicant, having been unsuccessful, be ordered to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before EUIPO can be allowed only as regards the costs necessarily incurred by the intervener for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 October 2016, Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess?IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs), T‑753/15, not published, EU:T:2016:604, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Batmore Capital to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Univers Poche before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Kanninen Schwarcz Iliopoulos Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 February 2017. E. Coulon H. Kanninen Registrar President * Language of the case: English.