Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2019 –  
Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)

(Case T‑744/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a discontinuous ellipse — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an ellipse — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 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  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 25-27, 46, 47) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 31, 32) |

| 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 discontinuous ellipse — Figurative mark representing an ellipse  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 45, 67-69) |

| 4. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1))  (see para. 57) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Scope — No obligation to prove matters within common knowledge — Dispute before the General Court  (Art. 256 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1))  (see paras 58, 59, 61) |

| 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 66) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 (Case R 692/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Oakley and Xuebo Ye.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 October 2018 (Case R 692/2018-1); |

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by Oakley, Inc. |

[Top](#document1)