Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2018 –  
Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

(Case T‑584/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national work marks PRIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | 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 26, 27, 80) |

| 2. | 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 PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz and word marks PRIMA  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 37, 40, 53, 79, 92, 108-110) |

| 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 of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 41, 42) |

| 4. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings—Challenge in reliance on new elements of law or fact—Not permissible  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65 and 76(1))  (see paras 88, 89) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment—Early mark occupying a distinctive independent position in the trade mark sought  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 98) |

| 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 101-104) |

| 7. | EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Legality—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice  (see paras 106, 107) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 (Case R 1933/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bolton Cile España and Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe „Primart” Marek Łukasiewicz.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe „Primart” Marek Łukasiewicz to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)