Language of document : ECLI:EU:T:2013:31

Joined Cases T‑225/06 RENV, T‑255/06 RENV, T‑257/06 RENV and T‑309/06 RENV

Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD — Appellations ‘bud’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 22 January 2013

1.      Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Conditions — Use of the sign in trade — Local significance of the sign — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4))

2.      Community trade mark — Decisions of OHIM — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision making practice

3.      Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the holder of an unregistered mark or other sign used in trade — Word and figurative marks BUD — Appellations ‘bud’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(4))

1.      The object of the condition laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark relating to use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance is to limit conflicts between signs by preventing an earlier right which is not sufficiently definite — that is to say, important and significant in the course of trade — from preventing registration of a new Community trade mark. A right of opposition of that kind must be reserved to signs with a real and actual presence on their relevant market. To be capable of preventing registration of a new sign, the sign relied on in opposition must actually be used in a sufficiently significant manner in the course of trade and its geographical extent must not be merely local, which implies, where the territory in which that sign is protected may be regarded as other than local, that the sign must be used in a substantial part of that territory. In order to ascertain whether that is the case, account must be taken of the duration and intensity of the use of the sign as a distinctive element for its addressees, namely purchasers and consumers as well as suppliers and competitors. In that regard, the use made of the sign in advertising and commercial correspondence is of particular relevance. In addition, the condition relating to use in the course of trade must be assessed separately for each of the territories in which the right relied on in support of the opposition is protected. Finally, use of the sign in the course of trade must be shown to have occurred before the date of the application for registration of the Community trade mark.

(see para. 47)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 53)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 55-57, 64, 66)