Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2025 – Transportes Centrais de Vergadela v EUIPO – Indra Sistemas (iTEC SkyNex)
(Case T‑57/25)
( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark iTEC SkyNex – Earlier EU word mark SKYNET – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 )
1.      Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts. 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))
(see paragraph 15)
2.      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 – Figurative mark iTEC SkyNex and word mark SKYNET
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 25-27, 47, 61, 62, 64)
3.      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 goods or services concerned – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 28, 43)
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 – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of a trade mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 49-51)
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, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)
(see paragraphs 59, 60)
6.      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 paragraphs 65, 66)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 November 2024 (Case R 2596/2023-1);
2.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.
Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs;
4.
Orders Indra Sistemas, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal Lda.