62018TJ0697_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –Aldi v EUIPO — Titlbach (ALTISPORT)
(Case T‑697/18)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ALTISPORT — Earlier international and EU word marks ALDI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Comparison of the goods and services — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 17, 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 23, 24)
3.
Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Service marks — Concept of ‘services’ — Retail trade in goods — Included — Conditions for registration
(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 2)
(see paras 28, 30)
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 ALTISPORT and word marks ALDI
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 43-47, 109, 110)
5.
EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU
(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1) first sentence)
(see para. 91)
6.
EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Scope
(see para. 93)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2018 (Case R 2683/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi and Mr Titlbach.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 September 2018 (Case R 2683/2017-4) in so far as it concerns ‘toys’ in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;
2.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.
Orders the parties to bear their own costs.