Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 —  
Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)

(Case T‑67/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN — Earlier EU figurative marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Production of additional evidence — Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Remittal of the case in part to the Opposition Division — Article 64(1) and (2) 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 26, 79, 80) |

| 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—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. 27) |

| 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—Figurative marks POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN and BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 29, 84-88) |

| 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—Complementary nature of the goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 30, 37, 43) |

| 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 47-49) |

| 6. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO—Examination by the Board of Appeal—Scope—Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose—Account taken—Discretion of the Board of Appeal—No contrary provision  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 20(1), and 50(1), third para.)  (see paras 99-102, 106, 108) |

| 7. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Need to determine that question, once raised by the applicant before the decision on the opposition  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))  (see para. 112) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 1882/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities and Polo Club.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Polo Club to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |

[Top](#document1)