Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2017 – SDSR v EUIPO – Berghaus (BERG OUTDOOR)

(Case T-139/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BERG OUTDOOR — Earlier EU word marks BERGHAUS — 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)

| 1. | Judicial proceedings–Application initiating proceedings–Formal requirements–Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute–Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based–Abstract statement–Inadmissibility  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para, and 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 177(1)(d))  (see paras 20, 21) |

| 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–Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 35, 36) |

| 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–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 BERG OUTDOOR and word marks BERGHAUS  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 57, 60, 61, 65-69, 71-73) |

| 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–Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para 59) |

| 6. | EU trade mark–Decisions of the Office–Principle of equal treatment–Principle of sound administration–EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice–Principle of legality–Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see para 63) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 (Case R 153/2015-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Berghaus and SDSR

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO and the intervener. |

[Top](#document1)