EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TJ0721

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2018.
Luxottica Group SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BeyBeni — Earlier national figurative mark Ray-Ban — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-721/16.

Digital reports (Court Reports - general)

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2018 –
Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni)

(Case T‑721/16)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BeyBeni — Earlier national figurative mark Ray-Ban — Relative ground for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. 

EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office ruling at first instance and referred to the Board of Appeal—Functional continuity between those two bodies—Examination of the appeal by the Board of Appeal—Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76)

(see para. 19)

2. 

EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Observance of the rights of the defence—Scope of the principle

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence)

(see paras 23, 24)

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 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. 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 enjoying a reputation—Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services—Condition—Link between the marks—Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))

(see paras 35, 36)

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 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—Relevant public

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))

(see para. 43)

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 enjoying a reputation—Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services—Figurative marks BeyBeni and Ray-Ban

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))

(see paras 45, 46, 49, 53, 68, 75, 77, 78, 87-89)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 (Case R 675/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Luxottica Group and Mr Chen.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

The decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 June 2016 (Case R 675/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Luxottica Group SpA and Xian Chen, is annulled;

2. 

EUIPO is ordered to pay the costs.

Top