Case T‑577/15

Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — EU word mark SHERPA — Earlier national word mark SHERPA — Declaration of partial invalidity — Subject matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 29 May 2018

1.      EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Need to determine that question, once raised by the applicant before the decision on the opposition

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))

2.      EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Non-submission of plea based on insufficient proof of genuine use

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 42(2))

3.      EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal — Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public

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

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 — Word marks SHERPA

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

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment

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

7.      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))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 44, 45)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 46)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 52)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 57)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 58, 59, 65-67, 70-72)

6.      According to the case-law, the similarity between goods or services must be assessed taking into account all the relevant factors which characterise the relationship between the goods and services concerned, including their nature, their intended purpose, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. Therefore, the complementarity between the goods and services, and in particular the fact that they are used in combination or association with one another, can lead the relevant public to perceive those goods and services as being similar.

(see paras 68, 69)

7.      According to the case-law, the General Court has the power to alter decisions, but the exercise of that power must be limited to situations in which the General Court, after reviewing the assessment made by the Board of Appeal, is in a position to determine, on the basis of the matters of fact and of law as established, what decision the Board of Appeal was required to take. The Court cannot substitute its own reasoning for that of the Board of Appeal nor carry out an assessment on which that Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position.

The Court cannot exercise that power to alter decisions without exceeding the limits set out by the case-law, since the Board of Appeal has not adopted a position, in the contested decision, on the scope and implications of the restriction of the list of goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, lodged during the invalidity proceedings before the Cancellation Division, as regards the assessment of the identity or similarity of the goods covered by the trade marks at issue, with the result that there is no assessment in that connection for the Court to review and, if necessary, alter, in accordance with the case-law.

(see paras 87, 88)