62018TJ0615_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2020 –Diesel v EUIPO – Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)
(Case T‑615/18)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line – Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
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, Recital 10 and Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))
(see paras 29, 30)
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 No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))
(see paras 31, 32, 71, 82)
3.
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 – Not possible to determine a quantitative threshold regarding minimal use
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))
(see para. 33)
4.
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 – Requirement for solid and objective evidence
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))
(see paras 34-36)
5.
EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Probative value of the evidence – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))
(see paras 57, 61, 72, 73, 75)
6.
EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))
(see para. 88)
7.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3))
(see para. 116)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5) in so far as it concerns the earlier mark No 583708 with regard to ‘men and women’s denim jeans’ and ‘footwear’ in Class 25;
2.
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.
Orders Diesel SpA, EUIPO and Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL each to bear their own costs.