Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

(Case T‑25/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark PROTICURD — Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS — Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power — Relative ground for refusal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Goods not similar — No likelihood of confusion)

| 1. | EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009—Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU—Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions  (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)  (see paras 34-36) |

| 2. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Recital 10 and Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))  (see paras 45-48) |

| 3. | EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment—Requirement of solid and objective evidence  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))  (see paras 49-54) |

| 4. | EU trade mark—Lodging of application for EU trade mark—Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark—Use of the general indications in the headings of the classes of the Nice classification—Scope  (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 2(4))  (see para. 70) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 74) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 75, 76, 116) |

| 7. | 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 para. 77) |

| 8. | 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 para. 84) |

| 9. | 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  (see para. 93) |

| 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—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—High distinctiveness of the earlier mark—Irrelevant where no similarity between the marks concerned  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 117, 118) |

| 11. | 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 PROTICURD—Word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS and figurative mark Proti Power  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 119, 123-126) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 (Case R 247/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)