62019TJ0288_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 May 2020 –Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)
(Case T‑288/19)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark IPANEMA — Earlier EU figurative mark Ipanema — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see para. 19)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Aim
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see para. 27)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Definition — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 28-31)
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Figurative marks IPANEMA and Ipanema
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 39, 45, 47, 61, 64, 75, 80, 89)
5.
EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2) and (3))
(see para. 41)
6.
EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — EUIPO's previous decision-making practice — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see para. 46)
7.
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Definition
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see para. 53)
8.
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Condition — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 54-56)
9.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it –Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see para. 69)
10.
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Proof to be adduced by proprietor — Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or damage
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see para. 73)
11.
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Use of the trade mark sought without just grounds — Definition
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see para. 74)
12.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))
(see para. 86)
13.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Alteration of a decision of the Office — Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))
(see para. 91)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 (Case R 1785/2018-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Divaro.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 February 2019 (Case R 1785/2018-2) in so far as it dismissed the action of Divaro, SA for ‘protective glasses’ in Class 9;
2.
Rejects the opposition for all the goods covered in the application for registration, except for ‘glasses (optical)’, ‘frames for the latter (lenses)’ and ‘sports glasses’ in Class 9;
3.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
4.
Orders each party to bear its own costs.