Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2017 —
IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)
(Case T‑132/15)
(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark popchrono — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Arts 44(1)(c), 130(1), and 132(1))
(see paras 15-17)
2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Precluded
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)
(see paras 31, 40)
3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a))
(see paras 75-78)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2015 (Case R 217/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Mr IR. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Mr IR to pay the costs. |