Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2018 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO

(Case C‑248/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of a mark representing a crayfish)

| 1. | Appeal—Grounds—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.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))  (see para. 6) |

| 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—Likelihood of association—Concept serving solely to define the scope of the likelihood of confusion  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 4(1)(b))  (see para. 6) |

| 3. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings—Challenged by the adducing of new facts—Not permissible  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)  (see para. 6) |

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |

| 2. | Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO is ordered to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)