Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 October 2018 –  
LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)

(Case T‑24/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark D-TACK — Earlier national word mark TACK — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Use under a different form — Opposition dismissed — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

| 1. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2))  (see para. 26) |

| 2. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Need to determine that question, once raised by the applicant before the decision on the opposition — Consequence  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))  (see para. 34) |

| 3. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3))  (see paras 37, 38) |

| 4. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Simultaneous use of several signs  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 42(2) and (3))  (see paras 40, 41) |

| 5. | EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))  (see para. 42) |

| 6. | EU trade mark — Observation of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Mark used solely as an element of a complex mark or in combination with another mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1))  (see para. 43) |

| 7. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Purpose and material scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a) and 42(2) and (3))  (see paras 45-48) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 (Case R 1983/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between LA Superquimica and D-Tack.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)