A registered name may be evoked through the use of figurative signs. The use of figurative signs evoking the geographical area with which a designation of origin is associated may constitute evocation of that designation, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in that region, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it. Whether there is an evocation of a registered name should be determined relying on the presumed reaction of consumers, and it must be assessed whether the link between the disputed elements and the registered name is sufficiently clear and direct. The concept of “the average consumer who is resonably observant and circumspect” must be understood as covering European consumers including consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to evocation of the protected name is made or with which that name is geographically associated and in which the product is mainly consumed.
The General Court did not err in law in deciding that the time limit for bringing an action against the contested decision had expired: article 4(4) of the decision concerning electronic communication with and by the Office must be interpreted as meaning that notification will be deemed to have taken place on the fifth calendar day following the day on which EUIPO placed the document in the user’s inbox, unless the actual date of notification can be accurately established as a different date within that period of time.
Marketing authorisation relied on in support of an application for a SPC concerning a new formulation of an old active ingredient, cannot be regarded as being the first marketing authorisation for the product concerned as a medicinal product in the case where that active ingredient has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation as an active ingredient.
Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR (Regulation 207/2009 as amended by Regulation 2015/2424) is not applicable to trade marks registered before the entry into force of the amendment to that Regulation (23 March 2016). Sign consisting of two-dimensional decorative motiffs affixed to goods such as fabrics or paper shall does not "consisting exclusively of the shape " within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) CTMR (Regulation 207/2009 prior to its amendment by Regulation 2015/2524). Although, in the main proceedings, the sign under consideration represents shapes which are formed by the external outline of drawings representing, in a stylised manner, parts of geographical maps, the fact remains that, apart from those shapes, that sign contains decorative elements which are situated both inside and outside those outlines.
IPPT20190228, CJEU, Groupe Lea Nature v EUIPO
Likelihood of confusion cannot be subject to a condition that the overall impression produced by the composite sign be dominated by the part of it which is represented by the earlier mark: General Court therefore not obliged to find that the element ‘so’ was dominant in order to find that the signs at issue were similar.
In a marketing authorisation procedure, a communication of the package leaflet or summary of the product characteristics of a generic medicinal product, which does not include indications or dosage forms which were still covered by patent law at the time that medicinal product was placed on the market ("carve out"), constitutes a request to limit the scope of the marketing authorisation of the generic medicinal product in question
Appeal against General Court finding that “Cystus” has not been put to genuine use despite being used on the packaging of the goods concerned unfounded: the condition of genuine is not fulfilled where the mark affixed to an item does not contribute to creating an outlet for that item or to distinguishing the item from the goods of other undertakings, the General Court stated that in view of its context the use of the term ‘cystus’ on the packaging of the products would be perceived as descriptive of the main ingredient of those goods “Cistus” and not as identifying their commercial origin, by stating this, the General Court did not find that the mark at issue was descriptive.
General Court implicitly held that trade mark in question has a high degree of distinctiveness solely because of its unusual shape, even though that shape is to some extent functional. Trade mark in question has been put to genuine use even though the word mark “Bullerjan” is affixed to the goods. The fact that the word mark “Bullerjan” can facilitate the commercial origin of the respective furnaces does not conflict with the fact that the word mark does not alter the distinctive character of the three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the shape of the goods. In the event that the court of first instance finds that the mark in question departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector, it is not up to the trade mark proprietor to provide further evidence that the shape of the trade mark is not customary in the sector concerned, but to the person who claims that the trade mark has not been put to genuine use.
General Court did not fail to appraise the figurative elements of the Lubelska mark for which registration was applied. existence of a likelihood of confusion between LUBELSKA and LUBECA to the requisite legal standard: General Court implicitly ruled that it considered the figurative elements of the mark applied for were not negligible and the word element was not dominant.