Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2022 –  
Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO – Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)

(Case T‑589/20) (
[1](#t-ECR_62020TJ0589_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY – Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Admissibility of new evidence – Alteration of the distinctive character)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Boards of Appeal – Allocation of an appeal to a Board – Referral back by the Board of Appeal to the body which adopted the contested decision – Allocation of the appeal to the same Board – No infringement of the requirement of impartiality  (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41(1) and 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 166(4)(c); Commission Regulation No 2018/625, Art. 35(1))  (see paras 44-47) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion – Facts and evidence not submitted in due time – Account taken – Power of assessment of the Office  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2); Commission Regulation No 2018/625, Art. 27(4))  (see paras 62, 63) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Observations by third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Use of the mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and scope of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 18(1)(a))  (see paras 80, 81) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Observations by third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Territorial extent of the use  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 18(1))  (see paras 94, 99, 100) |

| 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 – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 108, 119, 122, 136) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY and YAMAMAY  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 116, 133, 140) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Decisions made by the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – Previous decision-making practice of the Office – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 139) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62020TJ0589_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 378, 9.11.2020](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2020:378:TOC).

[Top](#document1)