Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2023 –  
Puma v EUIPO – Brooks Sports (Representation of a band with an acute angle)

(Case T‑5/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0005_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing a band with an acute angle – Earlier EU and national figurative marks representing a band – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Legal certainty – Equal treatment – Principle of sound administration)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before the adjudicating bodies of EUIPO – Precluded  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)  (see paragraph 19) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))  (see paragraph 21) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – No effect where there is no similarity between the marks concerned  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 28, 62) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Level of attention of the public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraph 29) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative mark representing a band with an acute angle and figurative marks representing a band  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 31-33, 47, 55, 63) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered in respect of identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 42, 52) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark with a reputation – Extension of protection of the earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5))  (see paragraph 67) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 October 2021 (Case R 910/2021-4) to the extent that it dismissed the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision of 30 March 2021 in respect of goods other than ‘footwear’; |

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| 3. | Orders Puma SE to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0005_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 84, 21.2.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:084:TOC).

[Top](#document1)