Kneipp GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:T:2024:267
• Date: 24 April 2024
• Docket Number: T-157/23
• Celex Number: 62023TJ0157
• Court: General Court (European Union)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

24 April 2024 (*)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Joyful by nature – Earlier EU word mark JOY – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Evidence in support of the reputation – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)

In Case T‑157/23,

Kneipp GmbH, established in Würzburg (Germany), represented by M. Pejman, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Markakis, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being

Jean Patou, established in Paris (France),

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of A. Kornezov, President, K. Kecsmár (Rapporteur) and S. Kingston, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

gives the following

Judgment (1)

…

Forms of order sought

11 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed its appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision of 28 February 2022;

– order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred before the Court and in the course of the opposition proceedings.

12 EUIPO contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the application;

– order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that an oral hearing is convened.

Law

…

Whether the earlier mark has a reputation and the burden of proof in relation to that reputation

…

22 Next, it should be noted that the reputation of an earlier mark must be established as at the filing date of the application for registration of the mark applied for (judgment of 5 October 2020, Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal), T‑51/19, not published, EU:T:2020:468, paragraph 112). Documents bearing a date after that date cannot be denied evidential value if they enable conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date. It cannot automatically be ruled out that a document drawn up some time before or after that date may contain...