Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2018 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO
(Case C‑248/18 P)
(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of a mark representing a crayfish)
1. Appeal — Grounds — 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(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))
(see para. 6)
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 — Likelihood of association — Concept serving solely to define the scope of the likelihood of confusion
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b); Council Directive 89/104, Art. 4(1)(b))
(see para. 6)
3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Challenged by the adducing of new facts — Not permissible
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)
(see para. 6)
Operative part
1. | | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
2. | | Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO is ordered to bear its own costs. |
2. | | Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO is ordered to bear its own costs. |