This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TJ0900
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2018.
Casual Dreams, SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
Case T-900/16.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2018.
Casual Dreams, SLU v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
Case T-900/16.
Court reports – general
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2018 –
Casual Dreams v EUIPO — López Fernández (Dayaday)
(Case T‑900/16)
(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dayaday — Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Reputation — Advantage unfairly taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)
|
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 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—Meaning—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 28, 30-32) |
|
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 enjoying a reputation—Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services—Conditions—Link between the marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 29) |
|
3. |
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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 38) |
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2016 (Case R 375/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Casual Dreams and Mr López Fernández.
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2016 (Case R 375/2016-2); |
|
2. |
Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Casual Dreams, SLU, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |