This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TJ0357
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 June 2022.
Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-357/21.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 June 2022.
Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-357/21.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:405
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 June 2022 –
Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO – Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)
(Case T‑357/21) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal – Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
|
1. |
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 – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 16-18) |
|
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 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 19) |
|
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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Degree of similarity required (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 25-27) |
|
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 – Figurative marks PLUMAflex by Roal and PUMA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 44, 46, 49-55, 57, 66, 69, 71) |
|
5. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – Solely EU rules taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 68) |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.