Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2018 –
Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T‑186/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark wallapop — Prior national figurative mark wala w — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Similarity of the services)

1.      EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3))

(see para. 15)

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 21, 22)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see para. 23)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks wallapop and wala w

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 36, 44, 49, 53, 54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 2350/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Unipreus and Wallapop.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017, in so far as it found that the services at issue in Case R 2350/2015-5 were different;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;

4. Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs.

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;

4. Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs.

4. Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs.