Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017.Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ — Rejection of the opposition — Evidence presented for the first time — Distortion — Genuine use of the earlier trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3)– Article 8(5) — Link between the trade marks to be compared).Case C-471/16 P.

Judgment // 26/07/2017 // 2 min read
bookmark 210 citations

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v EUIPO

(Case C‑471/16 P) ( 1 )

Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ — Rejection of the opposition — Evidence presented for the first time — Distortion — Genuine use of the earlier trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3)– Article 8(5) — Link between the trade marks to be compared)

  1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it—Precluded

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

(see paras 24, 25)

  1. Judicial proceedings—Statement of reasons for judgments—Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117)

(see para. 28)

  1. Appeal—Grounds—Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning and of legal arguments in support of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))

(see paras 34, 35)

  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—Link between the marks—Criteria for assessment

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

(see paras 50-53)

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the appeal;

  2. Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

Trade marks