62021TJ0357_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 June 2022 –Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO – Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)
(Case T‑357/21) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – 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 – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 16-18)
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 – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Relevant public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see para. 19)
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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Degree of similarity required
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 25-27)
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 PLUMAflex by Roal and PUMA
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 44, 46, 49-55, 57, 66, 69, 71)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – Solely EU rules taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see para. 68)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.