Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 –  
Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

(Case T‑882/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

| 1. | EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Aim  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)  (see para. 27) |

| 2. | EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15, 42(2), 51(1)(a) and 57(2))  (see paras 36-43) |

| 3. | EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Examination of the application—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Use by a third party with the consent of the trade mark proprietor—Express or implied consent  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1) and (2))  (see paras 68, 69) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Sipral World, SL, to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)