Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2019 — Andrea Incontri v EUIPO — Higicol (ANDREA INCONTRI)
(Case T‑197/16)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ANDREA INCONTRI — Earlier EU word mark ANDREIA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character of a first name and a surname — Power to alter decisions)
1.      EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Alteration of a decision of the Office — Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 64(1) and 65(3))
(see paras 18, 21)
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 — Not included
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)
(see para. 23)
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 29)
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks ANDREA INCONTRI and ANDREIA
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 30, 31, 33, 48, 58)
5.      Appeal — Grounds — Invalid ground of appeal — Concept
(see para. 35)
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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 37)
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element of which a trade mark is composed
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 43-45)
8.      EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided — Well-known facts taken into account
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1))
(see para. 55)
9.      EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3))
(see para. 61)
Re
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Higicol and Andrea Incontri.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4);
2.
Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;
3.
Orders Higicol, SA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.