21

The Court based this view on the following considerations: ‘33 First of all, it should be noted that Article 9(1) of [Regulation No 207/2009] does not make any distinction on the basis of whether the third party is the proprietor of a Community trade mark or not. Thus, that provision grants the proprietor of a Community trade mark an exclusive right to prevent “any third party”, not having its consent, from using, in the course of trade, any signs liable to infringe its mark …. 34 Consideration should then be given to Article 54 of the Regulation, concerning limitation in consequence of acquiescence, which states that “[w]here the proprietor of a Community trade mark has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later Community trade mark …, he shall no longer be entitled … either to apply for a declaration that the later trade mark is invalid or to oppose the use of the later trade mark”. 35 It is apparent from the wording of this provision that, before the limitation in consequence of acquiescence takes effect, the proprietor of a Community trade mark is entitled both to apply to OHIM for a declaration of invalidity of the later Community trade mark and to oppose its use through infringement proceedings before a Community trade mark court. 36 Finally, it should be pointed out that neither Article 12 of [Regulation No 207/2009], relating to the limitation of the effects of a Community trade mark, nor any of its other provisions provides for an express limitation of the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark in favour of the third-party proprietor of a later Community trade mark. 37 It is thus apparent from the wording and the general approach of Article 9(1) of the Regulation that the proprietor of a Community trade mark must be able to prevent the proprietor of a later Community trade mark from using that latter trade mark. 38 That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that the proprietor of a later trade mark also has the benefit of an exclusive right by virtue of Article 9(1) of the Regulation. 39 It should be noted in that connection that, as submitted by the European Commission in its observations, the provisions of the Regulation must be interpreted in the light of the priority principle, under which the earlier Community mark takes precedence over the later Community mark …. 40 It is clear from, inter alia, Articles 8(1) and 53(1) of the Regulation that, in the event of a conflict between two marks, the mark registered first is presumed to have met the conditions required to obtain Community protection before the mark registered second. … 49 It is, furthermore, important to emphasise the need to preserve the essential function of the trade mark, which is to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods (Arsenal Football Club, C‑206/01, EU:C:2002:651, paragraph 51). 50 In that regard, the Court has repeatedly held that the exclusive right under Article 9(1) of the Regulation was conferred in order to enable the trade mark proprietor to protect his specific interests as proprietor of the mark, that is to say, to ensure that the trade mark can fulfil its own function (Google France and Google, C‑236/08 to C‑238/08, EU:C:2010:159, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited). 51 …, if the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, in order to prevent the use by a third party of a sign that is liable to affect the functions of its trade mark, were required to await the declaration of invalidity of the later Community mark held by that third party, the protection accorded to it by Article 9(1) of the Regulation would be significantly weakened.’