This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TJ0201
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2016.
The Body Shop International plc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-201/14.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2016.
The Body Shop International plc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Case T-201/14.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2016 —
The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)
(Case T‑201/14)
‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA WISDOM — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’
|
1. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 15, 16, 23) |
|
2. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 17) |
|
3. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 18, 56-58) |
|
4. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Aim (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 19, 39) |
|
5. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 26, 27, 40-42) |
|
6. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Word marks SPA WISDOM and SPA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 43, 48, 49, 62, 63, 67, 68) |
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 1516/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Body Shop International plc and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders The Body Shop International plc to pay the costs. |