Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2019 –  
Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

(Case T‑231/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Djili — Earlier national word mark GILLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Request presented expressly and on time by the applicant — Possibility of submitting the application for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Not included  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2))  (see para. 17) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 21, 22) |

| 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 23) |

| 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark Djili and word mark GILLY  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 24, 25, 27, 31, 41, 45, 52) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 26) |

| 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 28) |

| 7. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2) and (3))  (see para. 55) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 (Case R 1902/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)