Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2024 –Tertianum v EUIPO – DPF (TERTIANUM)
(Case T‑73/23) (1)
( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark TERTIANUM – International registration of the earlier figurative mark Tertianum WOHNEN UND LEBEN IM DRITTEN ALTER – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – No genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Nature of use – Proof of genuine use )
1.      EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))
(see paragraph 21)
2.      EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 10(3))
(see paragraphs 22, 23, 25, 47, 48)
3.      EU trade mark – Lodging of application for EU trade mark – Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark – Use of the general indications in the headings of the classes of the Nice classification – Scope
(see paragraphs 45, 49, 50, 63-67)
4.      EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark – Requirements of clarity and precision – Determination, by the competent authorities and the economic operators, of the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark – Limits – Observance of the principles of predictability and legal certainty – Interpretation leading to an absurd result not permissible
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))
(see paragraph 87)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Tertianum AG to pay the costs.
1 OJ C 121, 3.4.2023.