62020TJ0197_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2021 –JT v EUIPO – Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN)
(Case T‑197/20)
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN – Relative ground for refusal – No well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention – Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
1.
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, Arts 65(3) and 80)
(see para. 22)
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. 26)
3.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier unregistered mark which is well-known in a Member State – Well-known trade mark – Meaning – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(2)(c); Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Art. 6bis; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(b))
(see paras 42-44)
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 – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU – Meaning – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))
(see paras 46, 47, 49)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier unregistered mark which is well-known in a Member State – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark QUILPAYÚN
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(2)(c))
(see paras 50, 61, 65, 75, 82, 83)
6.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Boards of Appeal – Competence of the Boards of Appeal – New full examination of the merits
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 63(1) and 64(1))
(see para. 55)
7.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Opposition proceedings – Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided – Examination of a legal question of the Office’s own motion – Condition
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8 and 76(1))
(see paras 56, 57)
8.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier unregistered mark which is well-known in a Member State – Conditions
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(b))
(see para. 76)
9.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier unregistered mark which is well-known in a Member State – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment – Well-known character of the earlier mark
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(2)(c); Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Art. 6bis)
(see paras 79-81)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Case R 1518/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, JT and, on the other hand, Mr Carrasco Pirard and the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO whose names are listed in the annex.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders JT to pay the costs.