Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)

(Case T‑94/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark tigha — Earlier EU word mark TAIGA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark)

| 1. | Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), 171, 172)  (see paras 18, 19) |

| 2. | EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Partial use — Effect — Concept of (part of the goods or services) covered by the registration  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))  (see paras 29-32) |

| 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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 41) |

| 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 — Word marks tigha and TAIGA  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 46, 47, 55-57, 70-72, 80) |

| 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 49, 50) |

| 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities — Conditions  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 67) |

| 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 — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 69) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 (Case R 693/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Taiga and ACTC.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)