Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2018 –

Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Verbis Alfa and EasyPack (InPost)

(Case T‑537/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark InPost — Earlier EU figurative marks INFOPOST and ePOST and earlier national word mark POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 20)

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—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28, 57)

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—Assessment of the likelihood of confusion—Determination of the relevant public—Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 35)

5. 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—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-40, 58)

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—Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 44)

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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Figurative mark InPost and word mark POST (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 62-64, 72, 78)

8. 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—Figurative marks InPost and INFOPOST (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 96-99)

9. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 104)

10. 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—Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services—Conditions—Similarity of the marks concerned—Degree of similarity required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 4(4)(a)) (see paras 105-107)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 546/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post, on the one hand, and Verbis Alfa and EasyPack, on the other.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;