Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2024 –  
Puma v EUIPO – Société d’équipements de boulangerie pâtisserie (BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère)

(Case T‑184/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0184_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Link between the marks at issue)

| 1. | 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 – Annulment or alteration for reasons appearing after the decision was adopted – Precluded  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)  (see paragraph 14) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Not included  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72 and 95)  (see paragraph 15) |

| 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 – Extension of protection of the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see paragraphs 18-20, 55, 56, 58, 60) |

| 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 the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity between the marks concerned – Degree of similarity required  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paragraphs 26-28) |

| 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 the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Figurative marks BERTRAND PUMA La griffe boulangère and PUMA  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see paragraphs 39, 42, 51, 52, 57, 67-73) |

| 6. | 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 the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity between the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paragraphs 46, 47) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0184_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 179, 22.5.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:179:TOC).

[Top](#document1)