Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2016 —

Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (Dino)

(Case T‑21/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Dino — Earlier EU figurative trade mark representing a dinosaur — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 19, 83) |

| 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 — Figurative mark Dino and figurative mark representing a dinosaur (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 59, 79, 86) |

| 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 — 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 paras 21, 22) |

| 4. | EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 32, 40, 74) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Office’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 33) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 72) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2012/2013-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu and Franmax UAB.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Franmax UAB to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)