Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 –  
Julius Sämann v EUIPO — Maharishi Vedic University (Representation of a tree)

(Case T‑559/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a tree — Earlier EU and international figurative marks representing an ‘arbre magique’ (magic tree) — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 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 17, 18, 44) |

| 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 20, 21, 26, 29, 37) |

| 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 tree and figurative mark representing an ‘arbre magique’ (magic tree)  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 30, 31, 36, 38-40, 45) |

| 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 of the marks concerned — Figurative marks without verbal elements — Phonetic comparison  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 32, 33) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 47) |

| 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 — Protection of the well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))  (see paras 51, 52) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2019 (Case R 1743/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann and Maharishi Vedic University.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Julius Sämann Ltd to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)