This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TJ0326
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016.
Novomatic AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-326/14.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016.
Novomatic AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-326/14.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 —
Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)
(Case T‑326/14)
‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009’
|
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 (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 22-24) |
|
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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 44, 79) |
|
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 — Figurative marks HOT JOKER and Joker (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 65, 70, 71, 80) |
|
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. 46) |
|
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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 66, 67) |
|
6. |
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 82) |
|
7. |
EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Office’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — No effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 83) |
|
8. |
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 para. 94) |
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2014 (Case R 589/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG.
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs. |