EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TJ0054

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2019.
Fashion Energy Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross-claim.
Case T-54/18.

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2019 –
Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T‑54/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross-claim)

1. 

EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1))

(see para. 36)

2. 

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Decision on the appeal — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 70(2) and 94)

(see paras 37, 38)

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 — Criteria for assessment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 45, 46)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 47, 55)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 48, 49)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark 1st AMERICAN and figurative mark representing an eagle

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 61, 76, 104)

7. 

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 62, 63)

8. 

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

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 77, 78, 81, 82, 92, 99)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Retail Royalty and Fashion Energy.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2);

2. 

Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;

3. 

In the main appeal, EUIPO and Retail Royalty Co. are ordered to bear their own costs and to each bear half of the costs incurred by Fashion Energy Srl.

4. 

In the cross-claim, Retail Royalty is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fashion Energy and EUIPO.

Top