Assessment of likelihood of confusion conducted correctly because of inconsistency in the appellant's arguments

Print this page 27-07-2015
IPPT20150709, CJEU, Pera-Grave v BHIM



The General Court has conducted a global assessment of likelihood of confusion.The General Court did not apply the T.I.M.E. ART / OHIM's case because inconsistency in the statements of the appellant regarding the meaning of "peramanca". The General Court did not assess whether the relevant public in the future would make a link between the geographical name "peramanca" and services involved: General Court judgment about inconsistent statements regarding appellant meaning of "peramanca" not contested.

"In paragraph 52 of that judgment, the General Court pointed out an inconsistency in the appellant’s arguments as regards the meaning of the word ‘peramanca’. It stated that the appellant submitted, on the one hand, that that word had a meaning because it referred to a region of Portugal which is well known for the quality of the wine produced there and, on the other hand, that that word was devoid of any meaning and had only an average degree of distinctiveness.
In those circumstances, the General Court cannot be criticised for not having applied the case-law arising out of the judgment in T.I.M.E. ART v OHIM (C‑171/06 P, EU:C:2007:171) in the judgment under appeal.
It must be pointed out at the outset that the third part of the single ground of appeal is ineffective inasmuch as the General Court, in carrying out its definitive assessment of the facts, found, in paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant’s arguments relating to the meaning of the word ‘peramanca’ were inconsistent. As the appellant has not disputed that point in its appeal, the arguments that it has set out in support of the third part of the ground of appeal cannot succeed."


IPPT20150709, CJEU, Pera-Grave v BHIM


C-249/14 P - ECLI:EU:C:2015:459