Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑435/12

Bacardi Co. Ltd

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 42 BELOW — Non-registered earlier national figurative mark VODKA 42 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in the course of trade — Application of national law by EUIPO)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 24 October 2018

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

   (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))
2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions — Interpretation in the light of EU law — Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4))
3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Precluded

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)
4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Use of the sign in trade — Temporal criterion

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)(a))
5. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Use of the mark capable of being prohibited by virtue of another earlier right — Review by the competent bodies of EUIPO and by the Court as to the national law applicable — Scope

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65 (1) and (2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 37)
6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Sign giving its holder the right to prohibit the use of a more recent trade mark — Burden of proof

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)(b))
7. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Assessment by EUIPO of the correctness of the facts pleaded and the probative value of evidence submitted — Scope

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76)
8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Figurative mark 42 BELOW — Non-registered figurative mark VODKA 42

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4))
9. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions — Existence of an earlier right not invalidated by a court decision which has become final

   (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4))

1. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 29)
2. See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 43-45, 59)
3. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 52)
4. It is necessary to apply to the condition for use in the course of trade of the sign relied on in opposition the same temporal criterion as that expressly laid down in Article 8(4)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark with regard to acquisition of the right to that sign, that is to say, that of the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark.

   (see para. 60)
5. See the text of the decision.

   see paras 78-82
6. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 84)
7. It is for European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to examine whether, in the context of opposition proceedings, the conditions for the application of the ground for refusal of registration which has been pleaded have been fulfilled. In that context, it is necessary to assess the correctness of the facts pleaded, and the probative value of the evidence submitted by the parties. EUIPO may be called upon to take account, in particular, of the national law of the Member State in which the earlier sign on which the opposition is based is protected. In that case, it must, of its own motion and by whatever means considered appropriate, obtain information about the national law of the Member State concerned, where such information is necessary to assess the applicability of the ground for refusal of registration in question and, in particular, the correctness of the facts pleaded or the probative value of the documents lodged.

   (see para. 85)
8. See the text of the decision.

   see paras 89-105
9. It follows from the case-law that, if an opponent is to be able, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark, to prevent registration of an EU trade mark, it is necessary — and sufficient — that, at the date on which the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) determines whether all the conditions for opposition are met, an earlier right may be claimed which has not been declared invalid by a judicial decision that has become final.

   In those circumstances, although it is for EUIPO, when it decides upon an opposition based on Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, to take into account decisions of the courts of the relevant Member States concerning the validity or classification of the earlier rights claimed to ensure that those rights continue to produce the effects required by that provision, it is not for it to substitute its assessment for that of the competent national courts — a power which, in any event, Regulation No 207/2009 does not confer on it.

   Moreover, the validity of a national trade mark, in this case the intervener’s, may not be called in question in proceedings for registration of an EU trade mark, but only in cancellation proceedings brought in the Member State concerned. Furthermore, although it is for EUIPO to ascertain, on the basis of evidence which it is up to the opponent to produce, the existence of the national mark relied on in support of the opposition, it is not for it to rule on a conflict between that mark and another mark at national level, such a conflict falling within the competence of the national authorities.

   Therefore, as long as the earlier national mark is in fact protected, the existence of a national registration or another right predating that former mark will be irrelevant in the context of opposition to an EU trade mark application, even if the EU trade mark applied for is the same as a national trade mark held by the company applying for registration or another right predating the national mark on which the opposition is based.

   see paras 108-111

[Top](#document1)