Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —
Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)
(Case T‑514/10)
Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark FRUIT — Non‑use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 12)
2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 13)
3. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 29, 38)
4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark FRUIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 39, 40, 54-68)
5. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Assessment of the genuineness of the use of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see para. 50 )
6. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), and Art. 78(1)(f)); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see paras 51, 52, 55)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2010 (Case R 1686/2008‑4) concerning revocation proceedings between Blueshore Management SA and Fruit of the Loom, Inc. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM; |
3. | | Orders Blueshore Management SA to bear its own costs. |