Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2021 –  
Unimax Stationery v EUIPO – Mitsubishi Pencil (UNI-MAX)

(Case T‑591/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark UNI-MAX – Earlier EU figurative marks uni and uni-ball – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a))  (see paras 21, 22, 24) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Element common to two marks having an independent distinctive role in the earlier mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a))  (see paras 23, 28-32, 46) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a))  (see para. 35) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark UNI-MAX – Figurative marks uni and uni-ball  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a))  (see paras 41, 47, 55-59) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – The Office’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see paras 50-53) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2020 (Case R 371/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mitsubishi Pencil and Unimax Stationery.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)