Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Groupe Léa Nature v EUIPO

(Case C‑505/17 P) (
[1](#t-ECR_62017CJ0505_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ — EU and national word and figurative marks containing the word element ‘SO…?’ — Opposition by the proprietor — Refusal of registration)

| 1. | Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility  (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)  (see para. 31) |

| 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 36-38) |

| 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 mark SO’BiO ētic and word and figurative marks SO...?  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 39-43, 48, 51, 52) |

| 4. | Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions  (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)  (see paras 54, 55) |

| 5. | Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted  (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)  (see para. 62) |

| 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 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 para. 79) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 83) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |

| 2. | Orders Groupe Léa Nature SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda and by The Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO). |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62017CJ0505_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 437, 18.12.2017](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2017:437:TOC).

[Top](#document1)