Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2016 —

Spa Monopole v EUIPO — YTL Hotels & Properties (SPA VILLAGE)

(Case T‑625/15)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE — Earlier Benelux word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1.                     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 — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 21-23, 29)

2.                     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 — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 24, 25, 61, 62)

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 — Word marks SPA VILLAGE and SPA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 28, 58, 64, 65, 69, 70)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Aim — Proof to be adduced by proprietor — Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or damage (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 42, 63)

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 — Condition — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 45, 47, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd in so far as it rejects the opposition to registration of the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE, in respect of ‘services consisting of the provision of food and drink; cafés restaurants; cafeterias; snack-bars; self-service restaurants; hotel restaurant services; restaurant services; catering and buffet services; bar services; hotel services’ in Class 43 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Orders EUIPO and YTL Hotels & Properties to pay the costs.