Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Jaguar Land Rover v EUIPO — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)

(Case T‑71/15)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Land Glider — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks LAND ROVER — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Protection also granted where a sign used for identical or similar goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see paras 25, 26) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Degree of similarity required  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5))  (see paras 28-31, 73) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Word mark Land Glider — Word and figurative marks LAND ROVER  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see paras 35, 36, 77, 78, 83) |

| 5. | Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to other documents not annexed to the application — Inadmissibility  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see para. 50) |

| 6. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1))  (see para. 62) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan Jidosha.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1415/2013‑4); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd; |

| 3. | Orders Nissan Jidosha KK to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)