Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 May 2020 –  
Workspace Group v EUIPO – Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE)

(Case T‑506/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE – Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 25, 26) |

| 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 28, 29, 35, 36, 55, 58) |

| 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 – Word mark UMA WORKSPACE – Figurative and word marks WORKSPACE  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 37, 38, 50-53, 56, 59) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Opposition proceedings – Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties – Well-known facts taken into account  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1))  (see para. 41) |

| 5. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on – Flexible interpretation  (see para. 64) |

| 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Coexistence of earlier marks – Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 67, 74) |

| 7. | Judicial proceedings – Costs – Litigation concerning intellectual property rights – Recoverable costs – Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2))  (see paras 87-90) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 (Case R 1910/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Workspace Group and Technopolis Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Workspace Group plc to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)