Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 May 2020 –  
Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)

(Case T‑288/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark IPANEMA — Earlier EU figurative mark Ipanema — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

| 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 — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 19) |

| 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 — Aim  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, 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 — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Definition — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see paras 28-31) |

| 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 — Figurative marks IPANEMA and Ipanema  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see paras 39, 45, 47, 61, 64, 75, 80, 89) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2) and (3))  (see para. 41) |

| 6. | EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — EUIPO's previous decision-making practice — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 46) |

| 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 — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Definition  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 53) |

| 8. | 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 — Condition — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see paras 54-56) |

| 9. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it –Precluded  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)  (see para. 69) |

| 10. | 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 — Proof to be adduced by proprietor — Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or damage  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 73) |

| 11. | 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 — Use of the trade mark sought without just grounds — Definition  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 74) |

| 12. | 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(3))  (see para. 86) |

| 13. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Alteration of a decision of the Office — Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))  (see para. 91) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 (Case R 1785/2018-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Divaro.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 February 2019 (Case R 1785/2018-2) in so far as it dismissed the action of Divaro, SA for ‘protective glasses’ in Class 9; |

| 2. | Rejects the opposition for all the goods covered in the application for registration, except for ‘glasses (optical)’, ‘frames for the latter (lenses)’ and ‘sports glasses’ in Class 9; |

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)