Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2022 –CB v EUIPO – China Construction Bank (CCB)
(Case T‑639/21) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark CCB – Earlier EU figurative mark CB – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark CB – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Reputation and enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8 (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Article 94 (1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
- 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 – Not included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see paragraphs 27, 28)
- EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94, first sentence)
(see paragraphs 35-37, 50)
- 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 paragraphs 57, 58, 79, 81, 82)
- 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Consideration of marketing circumstances – Not included
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 65, 66, 94, 95)
- EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 92)
- 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 CCB and CB
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 100, 101, 106, 107, 109, 113)
- 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 – Extension of protection of earlier mark with a reputation to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5))
(see paragraphs 119, 121)
Operative part
The Court:
-
Dismisses the action;
-
Orders Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) to pay the costs.
( 1 ) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.