Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)
(Case T‑817/16)
(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark V — Earlier international figurative mark V — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of an earlier trade mark — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
1. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of an earlier international trade mark — Excerpt from the Office’s CTM-Online database concerning an international registration designating the European Union — Not included
(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(a)(ii))
(see para. 36)
2. EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of an earlier international trade mark — Excerpt from the Office’s TMview database concerning an international registration designating the European Union — Included
(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) and (3))
(see paras 39-41)
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 60-62, 64-65)
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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 69)
5. 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 — Figurative marks V
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 74-78, 84-87, 99-101, 105-108, 127)
6. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see para. 88)
7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Sign consisting of a single letter — Condition — Distinctive character
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 4)
(see paras 115-117)
8. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Challenge to the contested decision by the defendant in its observations
(Commission Regulation No 216/96, Art. 8(3); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 59, 60(2) and 64(1))
(see paras 144-147, 156)
9. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence)
(see para. 162)
Re
| Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 (Case R 2030/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs. |