Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 January 2017 —  
Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal Groupe (ROYAL & CAPORAL)

(Case T‑95/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ROYAL & CAPORAL — Earlier EU word mark KAPORAL — Subsidiary action — Subject-matter of the action — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

| 1. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings—Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision—Decision upholding an opposition to registration of a trade mark, based on the existence of the likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark, without recognising the latter as having enhanced distinctiveness—No interest in bringing proceedings—Inadmissibility  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(4))  (see paras 29-34) |

| 2. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Declaratory judgments—Precluded  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3))  (see para. 43) |

| 3. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision—Limits  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3))  (see para. 45) |

Re:

First, action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 (Case R 867/2015-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Kaporal Groupe and Mr Aydin, and, second, subsidiary action against the same decision inasmuch as the Board of Appeal refused to take account of certain evidence produced by Kaporal Groupe and, as to the remainder, confirm the latter.

Operative part

| 1. | The subsidiary action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| 2. | Savas Aydin, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Kaporal Groupe are ordered to pay their own costs in the procedure relating to the subsidiary action. |

[Top](#document1)