Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2017 — Tamasu Butterfly Europa v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Butterfly)

(Case T‑315/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Butterfly — Earlier EU word mark and national trade name Butterfly — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

| 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 paras 20, 21) |

| 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 24) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 27) |

| 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 — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see para. 48) |

| 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 — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Concept — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))  (see paras 50, 51) |

| 6. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75)  (see para. 70) |

| 7. | EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Conditions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4))  (see para. 78) |

| 8. | EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Local scope of sign — Means of proof  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4))  (see paras 79, 81-84) |

| 9. | EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade — Word mark Butterfly — Trade name Butterfly  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4))  (see paras 97-99) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 221/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Tamasu Butterfly Europa and adp Gauselmann.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Tamasu Butterfly Europa GmbH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)