62023TJ0508_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2024 –Medspa v EUIPO – Hic (ALDO COPPOLA AMO)
(Case T‑508/23) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark ALDO COPPOLA AMO – Earlier national word marks and earlier international registration of word mark MIAMO – Earlier national figurative mark and earlier international registration of figurative mark MIAMO Healthy Skin System – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Annulment or alteration for reasons appearing after the decision was adopted – Not included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)
(see paragraph 30)
2.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies – Precluded – Arguments relating to matters within common knowledge – Included
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2))
(see paragraphs 31, 32)
3.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings – Challenged by the adducing of new facts – Not permissible – Account taken, for the purposes of interpreting EU law, of EU case-law or national or international case-law not cited before the bodies of EUIPO – Whether permissible
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see paragraph 41)
4.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of 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 paragraphs 47, 48, 54, 55, 102, 103, 110)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Determination of the dominant element or elements
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 59, 65-68, 71, 84, 88, 89, 108, 124)
6.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark ALDO COPPOLA AMO – Word marks MIAMO and figurative marks MIAMO Healthy Skin System
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 104-106, 111, 118, 125)
7.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraphs 115, 116)
8.
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(2) and (3))
(see paragraph 133)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Medspa Srl to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 34, 9.10.2023.