Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2020 –  
Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf v EUIPO — Brigade Electronics Group (CORNEREYE)

(Case T‑688/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CORNEREYE — Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment criteria  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 33, 34, 41, 70, 77) |

| 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 — Elements of a trade mark having a descriptive character  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 35-40, 65) |

| 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 — Word marks CORNEREYE and BACKEYE  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 43, 44, 60, 67-69, 82, 83) |

| 4. | EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 63) |

| 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Assessment criteria  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 74, 75) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brigade Electronics Group and Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017-1); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, including the costs necessarily incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |

| 3. | Orders Brigade Electronics Group plc to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)