Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2019 –  
Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T‑54/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross-claim)

| 1. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1))  (see para. 36) |

| 2. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Decision on the appeal — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle  (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 70(2) and 94)  (see paras 37, 38) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 45, 46) |

| 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 47, 55) |

| 5. | 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 — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 48, 49) |

| 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 — Figurative mark 1st AMERICAN and figurative mark representing an eagle  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 61, 76, 104) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 62, 63) |

| 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 77, 78, 81, 82, 92, 99) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Retail Royalty and Fashion Energy.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2); |

| 2. | Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible; |

| 3. | In the main appeal, EUIPO and Retail Royalty Co. are ordered to bear their own costs and to each bear half of the costs incurred by Fashion Energy Srl. |

| 4. | In the cross-claim, Retail Royalty is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fashion Energy and EUIPO. |

[Top](#document1)