Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)

(Case T‑230/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark RSTUDIO — Earlier EU word mark ER/STUDIO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))  (see para. 19) |

| 2. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Partial use—Effect  Concept of (part of the goods or services) covered by the registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))  (see paras 20, 21, 24) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 36, 37, 80) |

| 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—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. 38) |

| 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—Word marks RSTUDIO and ER/STUDIO  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 39, 49, 62, 71, 77, 83, 84) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 40) |

| 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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment—Complementary nature of the goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 48) |

| 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 52, 53) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 493/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Embarcadero Technologies and Rstudio.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Rstudio, Inc. to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)