Judgment of the General Court Tenth Chamber, 14 December 2022, Pierre Lannier v EUIPO – Pierre Lang Trading PL, T-530/21

• Date: 14 December 2022
• Year: 2022

56

In conclusion, the Court rules that the operator of an online sales website incorporating, as well as

that operator’s own sales offers, an online marketplace may be regarded as itself using a sign which is

identical with an EU trade mark of another person for goods which are identical with those for which

that trade mark is registered, where third-party sellers offer for sale, on that marketplace, without the

consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, such goods bearing that sign, if a well-informed and

reasonably observant user of that site establishes a link between the services of that operator and the

sign at issue, which is in particular the case where, in view of all the circumstances of the situation in

question, such a user may have the impression that that operator itself is marketing, in its own name

and on its own behalf, the goods bearing that sign. The Court adds that the following are relevant in

that regard:

 the fact that that operator uses a uniform method of presenting the offers published on its

website, displaying both the advertisements relating to the goods which it sells in its own name

and on its own behalf and those relating to goods offered by third-party sellers on that

marketplace;

 the fact that it places its own logo as a renowned distributor on all those advertisements; and

 the fact that it offers third-party sellers, in connection with the marketing of goods bearing the

sign at issue, additional services consisting inter alia in the storing and shipping of those goods.

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber), 14 December 2022, Pierre Lannier v

EUIPO – Pierre Lang Trading (PL), T-530/21

Link to the judgment as published in extract form

EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark representing the

superposed capital letters ‘P’ and ‘L’ – Earlier EU figurative mark representing a mirror image combination

of the superposed capital letters ‘P’ and ‘L’ – Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal –

Locus standi – 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)

On 13 December 2016, Pierre Lannier filed an application for registration of a figurative mark

representing the superposed capital letters ‘P’ and ‘L’ as an EU trade mark.

In 2017, Pierre Lang Europe Handelsges.m.b.H. filed a notice of opposition to registration of the mark

applied for, arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion.

108

The opposition was rejected in its

entirety by the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in 2020.

During those proceedings, Pierre Lang Europe Handelsges.m.b.H. was acquired by Pierre Lang

Trading GmbH.

The Board of Appeal of EUIPO, having declared the appeal admissible, annulled the decision of the

Opposition Division and upheld the opposition. The notice of the appeal against the decision of the

Opposition Division was filed with the Board of Appeal under the name of Pierre Lang Europe

Handelsges.m.b.H. However, the statement setting out the grounds of appeal also filed with the

Board of Appeal indicated the name Pierre Lang Europe Ges.m.b.H. Noting that that statement had

been filed in the name of an undertaking designated by a name different from that entered in the

EUIPO Register, the Registry of the Boards of Appeal requested the party which had instituted the

108

Within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ

2009 L 78, p. 1