Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019TJ0863

    Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2020.
    Production Christian Gallimard v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
    EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD – Earlier EU word marks GALLIMARD – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Conceptual comparison – Surnames – Independent distinctive role – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
    Case T-863/19.

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2020:632

     Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –
    Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO – Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)

    (Case T‑863/19)

    (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD – Earlier EU word marks GALLIMARD – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Conceptual comparison – Surnames – Independent distinctive role – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

    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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment

    (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 20, 21, 139-141)

    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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment

    (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 25, 26, 35, 36)

    3. 

    EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect – Concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ covered by the registration

    (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3))

    (see paras 33, 34)

    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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD and GALLIMARD

    (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 39, 42, 48, 53, 58, 64, 65, 87, 93, 98, 113, 124, 134, 150)

    5. 

    EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice

    (see paras 57, 63)

    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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark

    (Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

    (see paras 68, 69, 73-76, 90, 96, 103, 105, 131, 147)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 (Case R 2316/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française and Production Christian Gallimard.

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1. 

    Dismisses the action;

    2. 

    Orders Production Christian Gallimard to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

    3. 

    Orders Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA to bear its own costs.

    Top