Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2018 –  
Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)

(Case T‑89/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOVUS — Earlier EU word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

| 1. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal—Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies—Not included  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)  (see para. 15) |

| 2. | EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion—Opposition proceedings—Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties—Well-known facts taken into account  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1))  (see paras 16, 30) |

| 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—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 24) |

| 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—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see para. 25) |

| 5. | 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, Rules 2(2) and 4)  (see paras 32, 33) |

| 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—Word mark NOVUS—Word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 49, 55-59) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2016 (Case R 2413/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Erwin Müller and Novus Tablet Technology Finland.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 November 2016 (Case R 2413/2015-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘special holders for mobile phones’ referred to in the trade mark application; |

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| 3. | Orders Erwin Müller GmbH and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs. |

[Top](#document1)