Case T‑159/15

Puma SE

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bounding feline — Earlier international figurative marks representing a bounding feline — Relative ground for refusal — Sound administration — Proof of the reputation of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 9 September 2016

1.      EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Not included

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

2.      EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Decision discounting the earlier decision-making practice of the Office as regards the reputation of the earlier mark — Obligation to state reasons

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(5), and 75, first sentence; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1), third para.)

4.      EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1), third para.)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 14)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 20)

3.      In the light of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, EUIPO must, when examining an application for registration of an EU trade mark, take into account the decisions already taken in respect of similar applications and consider with especial care whether it should decide in the same way or not. In the light of its obligation to state reasons, the Board of Appeal cannot depart from EUIPO’s decision-making practice without providing the slightest explanation regarding the reasons which have led it to take the view that the factual findings in respect of the reputation of the earlier marks, which were made in those decisions, are not, or are no longer, relevant. The finding that the earlier marks have a reputation is a finding of a factual nature which does not depend on the mark applied for.

Moreover, in circumstances where earlier decisions of the Office relied on by the applicant are not accompanied by evidence of the repute of the earlier marks produced in the context of those earlier procedures, the Board of Appeal must, in accordance with the principle of sound administration, either request that the applicant submit supplementary evidence of the reputation of the earlier marks — if only to rebut it —, as the third subparagraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 enables it to do, or state the reasons why it takes the view that the findings made in those previous decisions as regards the reputation of the earlier marks have to be discounted.

(see paras 20, 33-35, 37)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 36)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 41, 42)