This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TJ0882
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018.
Sipral World, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001).
Case T-882/16.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018.
Sipral World, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001).
Case T-882/16.
Court reports – general
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 –
Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)
(Case T‑882/16)
(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DOLFINA — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
|
1. |
EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Statement of reasons for decisions—Aim (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 27) |
|
2. |
EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Causes of revocation—Absence of genuine use of a trade mark—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15, 42(2), 51(1)(a) and 57(2)) (see paras 36-43) |
|
3. |
EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Examination of the application—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Use by a third party with the consent of the trade mark proprietor—Express or implied consent (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1) and (2)) (see paras 68, 69) |
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1897/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between La Dolfina and Sipral World.
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Sipral World, SL, to pay the costs. |