62020TJ0589_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2022 –Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO – Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)
(Case T‑589/20) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY – Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Admissibility of new evidence – Alteration of the distinctive character)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Boards of Appeal – Allocation of an appeal to a Board – Referral back by the Board of Appeal to the body which adopted the contested decision – Allocation of the appeal to the same Board – No infringement of the requirement of impartiality
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(1) and 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 166(4)(c); Commission Regulation No 2018/625, Art. 35(1))
(see paras 44-47)
2.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion – Facts and evidence not submitted in due time – Account taken – Power of assessment of the Office
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2); Commission Regulation No 2018/625, Art. 27(4))
(see paras 62, 63)
3.
EU trade mark – Observations by third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Use of the mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and scope of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 18(1)(a))
(see paras 80, 81)
4.
EU trade mark – Observations by third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Territorial extent of the use
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 18(1))
(see paras 94, 99, 100)
5.
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 108, 119, 122, 136)
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY and YAMAMAY
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 116, 133, 140)
7.
EU trade mark – Decisions made by the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – Previous decision-making practice of the Office – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see para. 139)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.