Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 1 June 2016 —

Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)

(Case T‑34/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHEMPIOIL — Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. 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 paras 20, 21, 50)

2. 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 mark CHEMPIOIL and figurative mark CHAMPION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 39-42, 45, 51-54)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see para. 55)

5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 64)

6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Scope — No obligation to prove matters within common knowledge — Dispute before the General Court (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see paras 66, 67)

7. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 72)

8. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 78-80)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corp. and UAB SCT Lubricants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;