Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE n. 107/2015

ECLI:EU:C:2015:773
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

62015CO0206_EN

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] part

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑206/15 P,

APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 14 April 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Greenford ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Stanmore ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), represented by T. Sampson, Barrister, appellants, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH, established in Fuschl am See (Austria), applicant at first instance Office for Harmonisation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Designs) ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), defendant at first instance,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed of F. Biltgen, President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Wathelet, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the decision taken, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision on the action by reasoned order, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, makes the following

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

1. By their appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) seek the setting aside of the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) (T‑78/13, EU:T:2015:72) (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which it annulled the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Designs) ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) of 16 November 2012 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 107/2012 — 2) relating to opposition proceedings between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the decision at issue’).

Legal framework

2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides: ‘[A]n appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions.

However, interveners other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the institutions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may bring such an appeal only where the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] directly affects them.’

3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 May 1991, in the version applicable at the date when the applicant lodged the originating application with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the Rules of Procedure’), provides: ‘The parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal [of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]] other than the applicant may participate, as interveners, in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by responding to the application in the manner and within the period prescribed.’

4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure reads as follows: ‘[[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] and the parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal other than the applicant shall lodge their responses to the application within a period of two months from the service of the application.’

5. According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1): ‘Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: … (b) If because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.’ Background to the dispute

6. The facts giving rise to the dispute are summarised in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the judgment under appeal.

7. On 1 July 2010 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] filed an application for registration of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009.

8. The trade mark for which registration was sought is the word sign ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’.

9. The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Classes 32 and 33 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’).

10. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark application No 9215567 was published in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 170/2010 of 10 September 2010.

11. On 12 November 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requested [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to restrict the list of goods by removing those in Class 33 of that agreement.

12. On 15 November 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applied to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to remove ‘beers’, identified as such, from the list of goods in Class 32 of that agreement.

13. By letters of 22 and 25 November 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] accepted the requests for limitation, stated that the list of goods covered by the trade mark application in Class 32 has read as follows: ‘mineral and aerated waters; energy drinks; isotonic beverages; carbonated beverages (non-alcoholic, and beers); carbonated drinks (non-alcoholic, and beers); fruit flavored carbonated drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; non-alcoholic drinks and beverages’.

14. On 3 December 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’), filed a notice of opposition, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009, against registration of the mark applied for.

15. The opposition was based, inter alia, on the following earlier trade marks: – international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 15 July 2005 under No 867085, producing its effect in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], designating goods in Class 32 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Non-alcoholic beverages, including refreshing drinks, energy drinks, whey beverages, isotonic, hypertonic and hypotonic drinks (for use and/or as required by athletes); non-alcoholic malt beverages; mineral water and aerated waters; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups, essences and other preparations for making beverages as well as effervescent (sherbet) tablets and effervescent powders for drinks and non-alcoholic cocktails’; – Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 29 August 2008 under No 246682 for the same goods as those covered by the international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA] described above, it being made clear that ‘powders for drinks’ must be understood as being ‘effervescent powders for drinks’; – Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 15 January 2008 under No 242873, designating in particular, first, the same goods as those covered by the Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], described above and, second, goods in Class 33 corresponding to the following description: ‘Alcoholic beverages (except beers); hot and mixed alcoholic drinks, including alcoholic energy drinks, mulled wine and mixed drinks containing milk; alcoholic malt beverages, malt liquor; wines, spirits and liqueurs; alcoholic preparations for making beverages; spirit or wine-based cocktails and aperitifs; beverages containing wine’; – the international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 19 March 2008 under No 961854, having effect within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], with the exception of the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for, inter alia, the same goods in Class 32 as those covered by the international and national word marks described above; and – the international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 19 March 2008 under No 972114, having effect within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], with the exception of the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for, inter alia, the same goods in Class 33 as those covered by the Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA] described above.

16. The grounds put forward in support of the opposition were those referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009.

17. On 17 November 2011, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upheld the opposition in its entirety and ordered [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs.

18. On 13 January 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] filed a notice of appeal with [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to Articles 58 to 64 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009, against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision.

19. By the decision at issue, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upheld the appeal and annulled the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision.

In particular it held that the goods covered by the trade mark for which registration was sought and those covered by the earlier word marks were identical, but, as regards the comparison with the earlier word marks [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the signs at issue had a fairly low degree of visual and phonetic similarities and were conceptually different.

It also took the view that, as regards the comparison with the earlier word marks [OSCURATO:PERSONA], these signs had a low degree of visual and phonetic similarity and were conceptually different.

It accordingly decided that the mark applied for and the earlier marks could not be regarded as similar overall because of their significant conceptual differences and that, consequently, there was no likelihood of confusion for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009.

The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the judgment under appeal

20. By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 7 February 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action for annulment of the decision at issue.

In support of its action it put forward two pleas alleging infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009 respectively.

21. As regards the examination of the first plea in law, the scope of which was limited to the assessment of whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier word marks [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that, having regard to the fact that the goods at issue were completely identical and the overall resemblance between the signs at issue, the likelihood of confusion had been proved.

22. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] accordingly annulled the decision at issue on the ground that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal had infringed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009 and that there therefore was no need to rule upon the second plea in law alleging an infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009.

Form of order sought before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice

23. By their appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ask the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to: – declare that they are entitled to bring the present appeal against the judgment under appeal; – set aside the judgment under appeal; – reinstate the decision at issue, and – order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs of the appeal.

The appeal

24. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of its Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part.

25. In support of their appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argue, as a preliminary point, that they are entitled to bring the present appeal and, as to the substance, raise a single plea alleging the infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009.

Arguments of the appellants

26. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submit that the fact that they did not take part in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in particular by not presenting their own submissions, does not deprive them of the right to bring an appeal, in accordance with the terms of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice or [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

27. It does not follow from those two articles that the status as a party before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is subject to the condition that they have actively participated in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Moreover, those two articles do not expressly provide that such inaction automatically has the consequence of depriving one party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the right to bring an appeal against a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relating to those proceedings.

Such a consequence would have to be expressly stated.

That is not the case.

28. It must be held that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as applicants for the trade mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s forms of order before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in so far as the decision at issue upheld their application.

Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

29. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, an appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions.

However, interveners other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the institutions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may bring such an appeal only where the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] directly affects them.

30. It follows from the wording of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that, in order to be considered an intervener before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than the applicant before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must have responded to the application in the manner and within the period prescribed.

31. Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal other than the applicant are to lodge their responses to the application within a period of two months from the service of the application.

32. In the present case, it is common ground that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not respond to the originating application before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] although it was served with that document. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was mentioned in the judgment under appeal only as the ‘other party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ and not as ‘the other party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], intervening before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’.

33. In particular, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not propose their own forms of order before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and failed to indicate whether they supported those of one or other of the parties.

In that connection, the fact that they did not respond to the originating application cannot be interpreted as meaning that they supported [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s forms of order before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

34. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as having responded to the originating application in the manner and within the period prescribed, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

Accordingly, they were not interveners before that court and cannot, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, bring an appeal against the judgment under appeal (see, to that effect, order in Enercon v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑35/14, EU:C:2015:158, paragraphs 24 and 25).

35. It follows that the present appeal is manifestly inadmissible. Costs

36. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.

37. Therefore, the appellants must be ordered to bear their own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to bear their own costs.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
62015CO0206_EN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑206/15 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 14 April 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Greenford ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Stanmore ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), represented by T. Sampson, Barrister, appellants, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH, established in Fuschl am See (Austria), applicant at first instance Office for Harmonisation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Designs) ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of F. Biltgen, President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Wathelet, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the decision taken, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision on the action by reasoned order, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1. By their appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) seek the setting aside of the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) (T‑78/13, EU:T:2015:72) (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which it annulled the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Designs) ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) of 16 November 2012 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 107/2012 — 2) relating to opposition proceedings between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the decision at issue’). Legal framework 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides: ‘[A]n appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions. However, interveners other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the institutions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may bring such an appeal only where the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] directly affects them.’ 3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 May 1991, in the version applicable at the date when the applicant lodged the originating application with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the Rules of Procedure’), provides: ‘The parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal [of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]] other than the applicant may participate, as interveners, in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by responding to the application in the manner and within the period prescribed.’ 4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure reads as follows: ‘[[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] and the parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal other than the applicant shall lodge their responses to the application within a period of two months from the service of the application.’ 5. According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1): ‘Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not be registered: … (b) If because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.’ Background to the dispute 6. The facts giving rise to the dispute are summarised in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the judgment under appeal. 7. On 1 July 2010 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] filed an application for registration of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009. 8. The trade mark for which registration was sought is the word sign ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 9. The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Classes 32 and 33 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’). 10. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark application No 9215567 was published in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 170/2010 of 10 September 2010. 11. On 12 November 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requested [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to restrict the list of goods by removing those in Class 33 of that agreement. 12. On 15 November 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applied to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to remove ‘beers’, identified as such, from the list of goods in Class 32 of that agreement. 13. By letters of 22 and 25 November 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] accepted the requests for limitation, stated that the list of goods covered by the trade mark application in Class 32 has read as follows: ‘mineral and aerated waters; energy drinks; isotonic beverages; carbonated beverages (non-alcoholic, and beers); carbonated drinks (non-alcoholic, and beers); fruit flavored carbonated drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; non-alcoholic drinks and beverages’. 14. On 3 December 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’), filed a notice of opposition, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009, against registration of the mark applied for. 15. The opposition was based, inter alia, on the following earlier trade marks: – international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 15 July 2005 under No 867085, producing its effect in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], designating goods in Class 32 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Non-alcoholic beverages, including refreshing drinks, energy drinks, whey beverages, isotonic, hypertonic and hypotonic drinks (for use and/or as required by athletes); non-alcoholic malt beverages; mineral water and aerated waters; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups, essences and other preparations for making beverages as well as effervescent (sherbet) tablets and effervescent powders for drinks and non-alcoholic cocktails’; – Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 29 August 2008 under No 246682 for the same goods as those covered by the international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA] described above, it being made clear that ‘powders for drinks’ must be understood as being ‘effervescent powders for drinks’; – Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 15 January 2008 under No 242873, designating in particular, first, the same goods as those covered by the Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], described above and, second, goods in Class 33 corresponding to the following description: ‘Alcoholic beverages (except beers); hot and mixed alcoholic drinks, including alcoholic energy drinks, mulled wine and mixed drinks containing milk; alcoholic malt beverages, malt liquor; wines, spirits and liqueurs; alcoholic preparations for making beverages; spirit or wine-based cocktails and aperitifs; beverages containing wine’; – the international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 19 March 2008 under No 961854, having effect within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], with the exception of the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for, inter alia, the same goods in Class 32 as those covered by the international and national word marks described above; and – the international word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], registered on 19 March 2008 under No 972114, having effect within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], with the exception of the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for, inter alia, the same goods in Class 33 as those covered by the Austrian word mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA] described above. 16. The grounds put forward in support of the opposition were those referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009. 17. On 17 November 2011, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upheld the opposition in its entirety and ordered [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 18. On 13 January 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] filed a notice of appeal with [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to Articles 58 to 64 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009, against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision. 19. By the decision at issue, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upheld the appeal and annulled the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision. In particular it held that the goods covered by the trade mark for which registration was sought and those covered by the earlier word marks were identical, but, as regards the comparison with the earlier word marks [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the signs at issue had a fairly low degree of visual and phonetic similarities and were conceptually different. It also took the view that, as regards the comparison with the earlier word marks [OSCURATO:PERSONA], these signs had a low degree of visual and phonetic similarity and were conceptually different. It accordingly decided that the mark applied for and the earlier marks could not be regarded as similar overall because of their significant conceptual differences and that, consequently, there was no likelihood of confusion for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009. The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the judgment under appeal 20. By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 7 February 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action for annulment of the decision at issue. In support of its action it put forward two pleas alleging infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009 respectively. 21. As regards the examination of the first plea in law, the scope of which was limited to the assessment of whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier word marks [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that, having regard to the fact that the goods at issue were completely identical and the overall resemblance between the signs at issue, the likelihood of confusion had been proved. 22. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] accordingly annulled the decision at issue on the ground that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal had infringed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009 and that there therefore was no need to rule upon the second plea in law alleging an infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(5) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009. Form of order sought before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice 23. By their appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ask the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to: – declare that they are entitled to bring the present appeal against the judgment under appeal; – set aside the judgment under appeal; – reinstate the decision at issue, and – order [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs of the appeal. The appeal 24. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of its Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part. 25. In support of their appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argue, as a preliminary point, that they are entitled to bring the present appeal and, as to the substance, raise a single plea alleging the infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009. Arguments of the appellants 26. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submit that the fact that they did not take part in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in particular by not presenting their own submissions, does not deprive them of the right to bring an appeal, in accordance with the terms of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice or [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 27. It does not follow from those two articles that the status as a party before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is subject to the condition that they have actively participated in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Moreover, those two articles do not expressly provide that such inaction automatically has the consequence of depriving one party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the right to bring an appeal against a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relating to those proceedings. Such a consequence would have to be expressly stated. That is not the case. 28. It must be held that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as applicants for the trade mark [OSCURATO:PERSONA], supported [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s forms of order before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in so far as the decision at issue upheld their application. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 29. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, an appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions. However, interveners other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the institutions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may bring such an appeal only where the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] directly affects them. 30. It follows from the wording of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that, in order to be considered an intervener before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than the applicant before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must have responded to the application in the manner and within the period prescribed. 31. Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the parties to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal other than the applicant are to lodge their responses to the application within a period of two months from the service of the application. 32. In the present case, it is common ground that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not respond to the originating application before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] although it was served with that document. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was mentioned in the judgment under appeal only as the ‘other party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ and not as ‘the other party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], intervening before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. 33. In particular, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not propose their own forms of order before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and failed to indicate whether they supported those of one or other of the parties. In that connection, the fact that they did not respond to the originating application cannot be interpreted as meaning that they supported [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s forms of order before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 34. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as having responded to the originating application in the manner and within the period prescribed, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Accordingly, they were not interveners before that court and cannot, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56, second paragraph, of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, bring an appeal against the judgment under appeal (see, to that effect, order in Enercon v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑35/14, EU:C:2015:158, paragraphs 24 and 25). 35. It follows that the present appeal is manifestly inadmissible. Costs 36. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings. 37. Therefore, the appellants must be ordered to bear their own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to bear their own costs.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE n. 107/2015 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris