Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 June 2018 –  
Anabi Blanga v EUIPO — Polo v Lauren (HPC POLO)

(Case T‑657/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark HPC POLO — Earlier EU word mark POLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—None—Inadmissibility  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))  (see para. 15) |

| 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 para. 20) |

| 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—Word marks HPC POLO and POLO  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 21, 29, 31-35, 39) |

| 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 of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 26-28) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—High distinctiveness of the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 38) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2368/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company and Mr Anabi Blanga.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Gidon Anabi Blanga to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)