Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2017 —
Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (real)
(Case T‑287/15)
(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark real — Genuine use — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Use of the mark by a third party — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Proof of genuine use — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)
1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1), second paragraph, (a), of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of alteration of distinctive character
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para., (a), and 51(1)(a))
(see paras 23-25, 29)
2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76)
(see para. 65)
3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2))
(see para. 79)
4. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Time-limits — Extension of a time-limit fixed by OHIM — Conditions
(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 71(1), second sentence)
(see para. 80)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2015 (Case R 2285/2013-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Tayto Group and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs. |