Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017

Data

Court: General Court

Case date: 9 februari 2017

Verdict

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 —
International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (TRIPLE EVOLUTION)

(Case T‑82/16)

"(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative EU trade mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION - Earlier EU word mark Evolution - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)"

EU trade markAppeals procedureAction before the EU judicatureJurisdiction of the General CourtRe-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before itPrecluded

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

(see paras 16, 51)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markCriteria for assessment

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

(see paras 25, 26)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesSimilarity of the marks concernedCriteria for assessmentComposite mark

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

(see paras 30, 33-35)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markFigurative mark TRIPLE EVOLUTION and word mark Evolution

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

(see paras 43, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61)

EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalOpposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or servicesLikelihood of confusion with the earlier markLikelihood of associationEarlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family

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

(see para. 53)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 (Case R 0725/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann and International Gaming Projects.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Orders International Gaming Projects Ltd to pay the costs.