Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 —
International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)

(Case T‑82/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION — Earlier EU word mark Evolution — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. 

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Precluded

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

(see paras 16, 51)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment

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

(see paras 25, 26)

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

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

(see paras 30, 33-35)

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 — Figurative mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION and word mark Evolution

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

(see paras 43, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61)

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 — Likelihood of association — Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family

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

(see para. 53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 0725/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and International Gaming Projects.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders International Gaming Projects Ltd to pay the costs.