Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 –  
BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO – Tipiak (Sadia)

(Case T‑309/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Sadia – Earlier national word mark SAIDA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Principle of sound administration – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons)

| 1. | Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Procedural rules – Immediate entry into force  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see para. 20) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Procedural role of EUIPO – Right of EUIPO, although designated as the defendant, to support the applicant’s claims – Functional independence of Boards of Appeal and their members  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 178(2) and (3))  (see para. 22) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU  (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paras 35, 36) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account  (Council Regulation 207/2009)  (see paras 45, 125) |

| 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  (Council Regulation 207/2009)  (see para. 46) |

| 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 – Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 53-55, 148) |

| 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 57) |

| 8. | 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 Sadia and word mark SAIDA  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 60, 76, 127, 136, 142, 145, 147, 154, 155) |

| 9. | 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 61, 62, 109, 139, 141) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1834/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tipiak and BRF Singapore Foods.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak; |

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)