EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CJ0162

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2019.
Republic of Poland v Stock Polska sp. z o.o. and European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1) — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element LUBELSKA — Dominant and distinctive element.
Case C-162/17 P.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — Poland v Stock Polska sp. z o.o. and EUIPO

(Case C‑162/17 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1) — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element LUBELSKA — Dominant and distinctive element)

1. 

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 36)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 41, 42)

3. 

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

(see paras 59, 60)

4. 

EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Scope — Obligation to prove matters within common knowledge — No such obligation — Dispute before the General Court — Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment by the General Court of whether matters were within common knowledge — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76)

(see para. 69)

5. 

Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Plea alleging distortion of the facts — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))

(see paras 70, 71)

6. 

Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)

(see paras 78, 79)

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the appeal;

2. 

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.


( 1 ) OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

Top