Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 September 2018 –  
Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)

(Case T‑435/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HIPANEMA — Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — Aesthetically complementary nature — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 177(1)(d))  (see paras 15, 16) |

| 2. | Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))  (see para. 17) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 27, 85) |

| 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 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 paras 35, 36, 62) |

| 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 registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment—Complementary nature of the goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 52, 53) |

| 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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Complementary nature of the goods or services—Shoes in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement and jewellery, jewellery products and watches in Class 14 of that agreement  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 55-57) |

| 7. | 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 HIPANEMA and figurative marks Ipanema and iPANEMA  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 58-61, 64-66, 71, 74, 77, 86) |

| 8. | EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion—Duty of diligence  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1))  (see para. 79) |

| 9. | EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States—Effect  (see para. 81) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)