62021TJ0623_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2022 –Puma v EUIPO – Vaillant (Puma)
(Case T‑623/21) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Puma – 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Aim
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paragraph 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paragraphs 20-23, 41, 67, 68, 80)
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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation 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 paragraphs 27, 29, 36)
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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Word mark Puma and figurative mark Puma
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paragraphs 38, 43, 52, 59, 77, 100, 114, 120, 122)
5.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits – Limited to manifest errors of assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))
(see paragraph 42)
6.
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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity of the marks concerned – Degree of similarity required
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and 7(5))
(see paragraphs 45, 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or in the European Union – Concept – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))
(see paragraphs 53, 61)
8.
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
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see paragraph 95)
9.
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 – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)
(see paragraph 107)
10.
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 particular case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see paragraphs 108-110)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.