Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2017 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)

(Case T‑223/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark DriCloud — Earlier international word marks ICLOUD — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Submission of evidence out of time — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

| 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 EUIPO bodies — Exclusion  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)  (see para. 24) |

| 2. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2))  (see paras 32, 33, 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 44, 45, 70) |

| 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 — Figurative mark DriCloud and word marks ICLOUD  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 47, 48, 69, 71, 76, 78, 79) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 49, 58) |

| 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 60-62) |

| 7. | EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see paras 80, 81) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 (Case R 339/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Massive Bionics.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Massive Bionics, SL to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)