Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

24 April 2024 (
[\*1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0157_EXT_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Joyful by nature – Earlier EU word mark JOY – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Evidence in support of the reputation – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)

In Case T‑157/23,

Kneipp GmbH, established in Würzburg (Germany), represented by M. Pejman, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Markakis, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being

Jean Patou, established in Paris (France),

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of A. Kornezov, President, K. Kecsmár (Rapporteur) and S. Kingston, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

gives the following

Judgment (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0157_EXT_EN_01-E0002)
)

…

Forms of order sought

| 11 | The applicant claims that the Court should:   | – | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed its appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision of 28 February 2022; |  | – | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred before the Court and in the course of the opposition proceedings. | |

| 12 | EUIPO contends that the Court should:   | – | dismiss the application; |  | – | order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that an oral hearing is convened. | |

Law

…

Whether the earlier mark has a reputation and the burden of proof in relation to that reputation

…

| 22 | Next, it should be noted that the reputation of an earlier mark must be established as at the filing date of the application for registration of the mark applied for (judgment of 5 October 2020, Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal), [T‑51/19](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2020%3A468&locale=en), not published, [EU:T:2020:468](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2020%3A468), paragraph [112](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2020%3A468&anchor=#point112)). Documents bearing a date after that date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date. It cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after that date may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date (see judgment of 16 October 2018, VF International v EUIPO – Virmani (ANOKHI), [T‑548/17](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2018%3A686&locale=en), not published, [EU:T:2018:686](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2018%3A686), paragraph [104](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2018%3A686&anchor=#point104) and the case-law cited; see also, by analogy, order of 27 January 2004, La Mer Technology, [C‑259/02](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2004%3A50&locale=en), [EU:C:2004:50](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2004%3A50), paragraph [31](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2004%3A50&anchor=#point31)).  … |

| 33 | Those documents, as well as the prestigious awards won by the perfume Joy, make it possible to establish that the earlier mark is widely known by the general public, in relation to the goods which it designates, in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, even though those awards date back several years and sales figures fell between 2013 and 2018. In the latter regard, it should be noted that, in any event, the earlier mark enjoyed a high degree of reputation in the past, which, even if it were to be assumed that it may have diminished over the years, still survived at the date of filing the application for registration of the mark applied for in 2019; accordingly, a certain ‘surviving’ reputation remained at that date (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 May 2014, Simca Europe v OHIM – PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca), [T‑327/12](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2014%3A240&locale=en), [EU:T:2014:240](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2014%3A240), paragraphs [46](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2014%3A240&anchor=#point46), [49](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2014%3A240&anchor=#point49) and [52](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2014%3A240&anchor=#point52)).  … |

| 37 | In the second place, the applicant also relies on the fact that the Board of Appeal assumed that the earlier mark had a reputation and wrongly stated that it was for the applicant to prove a drastic loss of reputation of the earlier mark between 2018 and 29 November 2019, the filing date of the mark applied for. |

| 38 | As recalled in the case-law cited in paragraph 22 above, it cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after the filing date of the application for registration of the mark at issue may contain useful information in view of the fact that the reputation of a trade mark is, in general, acquired progressively. The same reasoning applies to the loss of such a reputation, which is also, in general, lost gradually. The evidential value of such a document is likely to vary depending on whether the period covered is close to or distant from the filing date. |

| 39 | Thus, evidence which predates the filing date of the application for registration of the contested mark cannot be deprived of probative value on the sole ground that it bears a date which predates that filing date by five years (judgment of 5 October 2020, apiheal, [T‑51/19](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2020%3A468&locale=en), not published, [EU:T:2020:468](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2020%3A468), paragraph [112](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2020%3A468&anchor=#point112)). |

| 40 | It is also apparent from the case-law that, as regards the burden of proof in relation to reputation, it is borne by the proprietor of the earlier mark (see judgment of 5 October 2022, Puma v EUIPO – CMS (CMS Italy), [T‑711/20](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2022%3A604&locale=en), not published, [EU:T:2022:604](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2022%3A604), paragraph [83](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AT%3A2022%3A604&anchor=#point83) and the case-law cited). |

| 41 | In the present case, in paragraph 34 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal, after recalling that the application for registration had been filed on 29 November 2019, emphasised that most of the evidence submitted related to the period between 2013 and 2017 and that some of that evidence dated back to 1990, 2000 or 2006; however, it noted that the evidence in fact contained indications concerning the continuous efforts of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to maintain its market share in 2018, before adding that ‘the loss of reputation rarely happens as a single occurrence but is rather a continuing process over a long period of time, as the reputation is usually built up over a period of years and cannot simply be switched on and off’ and that ‘in addition, such drastic loss of reputation for a short period of time would be up to the applicant to prove’. |

| 42 | Thus, contrary to what the applicant claims, that assessment does not constitute a reversal of the burden of proof and is consistent with the case-law cited in paragraphs 38 to 40 above. In the absence of concrete evidence showing that the reputation progressively acquired by the earlier mark over many years suddenly disappeared during the last year under examination, the Board of Appeal was entitled to conclude that the earlier mark still had a reputation on 29 November 2019, the relevant date (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 January 2004, Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission, [C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2004%3A6&locale=en), [EU:C:2004:6](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2004%3A6), paragraph [79](./../../../legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2004%3A6&anchor=#point79)).  … |

|  | On those grounds,  THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)  hereby: |

|  | | 1. | Dismisses the action; | |

|  | | 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  | Kornezov  Kecsmár  Kingston  Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 24 April 2024.  [Signatures] |

---

(
[\*1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0157_EXT_EN_01-E0001)
) Language of the case: English.

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0157_EXT_EN_01-E0002)
) Only the paragraphs of the present judgment which the Court considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.

[Top](#document1)