Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 –  
Pielczyk v EUIPO — Thalgo TCH (DERMÆPIL SUGAR EPIL SYSTEM)

(Case T‑398/18)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark DERMÆPIL sugar epil system — Earlier national figurative mark dermépil — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 64 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Comparison of the goods)

| 1. | EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), 2nd para., (a))  (see paras 34-39) |

| 2. | EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Definition — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3))  (see paras 46-56, 61, 62) |

| 3. | EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU  (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, 1st sentence)  (see para. 82) |

| 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 — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 88, 114-117) |

| 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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 89, 90) |

| 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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 95, 123) |

| 7. | EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))  (see para. 108) |

| 8. | EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Relative grounds for invalidity — Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark DERMÆPIL sugar epil system and dermépil  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a))  (see paras 110, 127-134, 142, 148-153, 157-159) |

| 9. | 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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 118) |

| 10. | 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 125, 126, 136, 137, 146, 147, 156) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2018 (Joined Cases R 979/2017-4 and R 1070/2017-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Thalgo TCH and Mr Pielczyk.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Radoslaw Pielczyk to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)