Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2023 –  
Rolex v EUIPO – PWT (Device of a crown)

(Case T‑726/21) (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TJ0726_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing a crown – Earlier EU figurative marks representing a crown and ROLEX – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – No injury to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) 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 – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 22, 28, 31) |

| 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 – Figurative mark representing a crown – Figurative marks representing a crown and ROLEX  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 34, 35) |

| 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see paragraphs 39-41, 49) |

| 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 enjoying a reputation – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Proof to be adduced by proprietor – Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or detriment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see paragraphs 42, 43, 50) |

| 6. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see paragraph 52) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Rolex SA to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TJ0726_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 11, 10.1.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:011:TOC).

[Top](#document1)