Corte di giustizia UE n. 591/2026

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 4 September 2026 ( * ) ( EU trade mark – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] proceedings – EU figurative mark TOURCOMPASS – Earlier EU word mark TourCom and earlier EU figurative mark TOURCOM – Cross-claim – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑741/25, TourCom, established in Paris (France), represented by B. Moreau-Margotin and A. Lassabe, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO), represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], being Aclass A/S, established in Viby (Denmark), represented by A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], lawyers, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], P. Nihoul (Rapporteur) and L. Truchot, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written part of the procedure, inter alia: –        the intervener’s cross-claim lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 18 December 2025, –        the plea of inadmissibility relating to the cross-claim, raised by EUIPO by document lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 11 March 2026, –        the applicant’s response to the cross-claim, lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 27 March 2026, –        the intervener’s observations on the plea of inadmissibility, lodged at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 2 June 2026, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its action under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicant, TourCom, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) of 14 August 2025 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 591/2025-4) (‘the contested decision’). 2 By its cross-claim, made pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 182 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the intervener, Aclass A/S, seeks, in essence, the annulment and alteration of the contested decision in the event that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upholds the main action. Background to the dispute 3 On 29 March 2023, the applicant filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with EUIPO in respect of the following figurative sign: 4 The mark applied for covers services in Classes 39 and 43 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description: –        Class 39: ‘Travel arrangement, travel agencies, including arranging of holidays; Arranging the hire of all means of transport’; –        Class 43: ‘Travel agencies for arranging, allocating and booking of temporary accommodation and temporary lodging in hotels, motels, boarding houses and tourist homes; Arranging, allocating and booking of campground facilities and rental of tents’. 5 On 2 June 2023, the applicant filed a notice of opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of the services referred to in paragraph 4 above. 6 The opposition was based on the following earlier marks: –        the EU word mark TourCom, applied for on 4 April 2006 and registered on 29 March 2007 under number 4 995 742, covering, inter alia, services in Classes 39 and 43 and corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description: –        Class 39: ‘Travel arrangement; booking of seats for travel; arranging the transportation of people’; –        Class 43: ‘Reservation of hotels and temporary accommodation; hotel services’. –        the EU figurative mark, reproduced below, applied for on 25 November 2020 and registered on 26 March 2021 under number 18 344 317, covering, inter alia, services in Classes 39 and 43 and corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description: –        Class 39: ‘Transport; sightseeing [tourism]; arranging and booking of travel and holidays; freight forwarding; transport and escorting of travellers; arranging of cruises and sightseeing; booking of seats (travel); ticket-reservation; vehicle, boat and aircraft rental; delivery of newspapers; tourist information (transportation); chauffeur service’; –        Class 43: ‘Reservation and hire of hotels and temporary accommodation; hotel services; services for the provision of meals; bar services; cafes, restaurants and cafeterias; self-service restaurants; rental of chairs, tables, table linen, glassware; rental of meeting rooms; snack-bar services; food and drink catering; accommodation bureau services [hotels, boarding houses]; providing campground facilities; holiday camp services [lodging]; retirement home services; temporary accommodation; motel services; boarding house services; boarding house bookings’: 7 The ground relied on in support of the opposition was that set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1). 8 Following a request made by the intervener, EUIPO invited the applicant to furnish proof of genuine use of the earlier EU word mark which had been relied on in support of the opposition. The applicant complied with that request within the time limit set. 9 On 3 February 2025, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected the opposition. 10 On 2 April 2025, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision. 11 By the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. In particular, it found that, even taking into account the identity of the services and the average level of attention of the relevant public, any likelihood of confusion was precluded on account of the at most low degree of similarity between the signs at issue, and the no more than normal distinctiveness of the earlier EU word mark. In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal found that it was not necessary to examine whether there was genuine use of that mark, which it assumed had been proved. Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal concluded that any likelihood of confusion was moreover precluded on account of the earlier EU figurative mark, which was even less similar to the mark applied for. Forms of order sought 12 In the cross-claim, the intervener claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        annul or alter the contested decision in so far as it proceeds as if genuine use of the earlier EU word mark had been proved for all the services in question; –        order the applicant to pay the costs. 13 In its plea of inadmissibility, EUIPO contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the cross-claim as inadmissible; –        order the intervener to pay the costs of the cross-claim. 14 In its response to the cross-claim, the applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        alter the contested decision by upholding the opposition; –        in the alternative, annul the contested decision; –        order EUIPO to pay the costs. 15 In its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, the intervener states that it maintains its cross-claim without submitting additional arguments in that respect. Law 16 In proceedings relating to intellectual property rights, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 173(3) of the Rules of Procedure, an intervener has the same procedural rights as the main parties. 17 In the present case, the intervener has made a cross-claim seeking the annulment or alteration of the contested decision in the event that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upholds the main action, since, in that decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal proceeded as if genuine use of the earlier EU word mark had been proved. 18 Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if the defendant so requests, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may rule on a plea of inadmissibility without going to the substance of the case. It follows from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 130(6) of those rules that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may decide to open the oral part of the procedure. 19 In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that it has sufficient information from the documents before it and decides to give judgment without opening the oral part of the procedure. 20 By its plea of inadmissibility, EUIPO submits, first, that the intervener has no interest in bringing a cross-claim since the contested decision upheld its claims. Secondly, in its view, the cross-claim is conditional, with the result that no interest in bringing that claim existed at the date on which it was submitted. 21 In its response to the cross-claim, the applicant merely repeats, in essence, the heads of claim which it put forward in the context of the main action, without explicitly addressing the cross-claim. 22 In its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, the intervener, without formally contesting that plea or submitting arguments pertaining to it, states that it maintains its cross-claim. 23 In that regard, in the first place, it should be observed that, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 72(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, an action before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] against a decision of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal is ‘open to any party to proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal adversely affected by its decision’. 24 A decision of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal must be regarded as having upheld the claims of one of the parties before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal when it grants the application of that party on the basis of one of the grounds for refusal of registration of a mark or, more generally, of only part of the arguments put forward by that party, even where it does not examine, or where it dismisses, the other grounds or arguments raised by that party (see judgment of 25 September 2015, Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM – Bolloré (BLUECO) , T‑684/13, EU:T:2015:699, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). 25 In addition, according to settled case-law, the legal interest in bringing proceedings presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it. It follows that, in so far as a decision of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal upholds in their entirety the claims of the party concerned, that party does not have standing to bring an action before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see judgment of 5 February 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (TC [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) , T‑44/19, not published, EU:T:2020:31, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited). 26 In the present case, it must be observed that, before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal, the intervener claimed that that board should dismiss the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by which the latter rejected the opposition. It is clear that, in the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action in accordance with the claims of the intervener. Consequently, it must be found that the contested decision upheld the latter’s claims within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 24 above. 27 In that regard, it is irrelevant that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal did not make a decision, in dismissing the applicant’s action, regarding proof of genuine use of the earlier EU word mark as the intervener had requested. Notwithstanding the fact that the intervener does not agree with all of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal’s findings, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal entirely upheld its claims by rejecting the opposition to registration of its mark (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 21 June 2023, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO – Lego (Building block from a toy building set) , T‑537/22, not published, EU:T:2023:357, paragraph 35). 28 In the second place, it is apparent from settled case-law that an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as the applicant has an interest in the contested act being annulled. That interest must be vested and present and is assessed at the day on which the action is brought. If the interest which an applicant claims concerns a future legal situation, it must demonstrate that the prejudice to that situation is already certain. Therefore, the party which brought the action cannot rely upon future and uncertain situations to justify its interest in bringing proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 16 September 2021, H&H v EUIPO – Giuliani (Swisse) , T‑486/20, not published, EU:T:2021:619, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 29 In the present case, the intervener seeks the annulment or alteration of the contested decision in the event that the applicant’s main action is upheld (see paragraph 17 above). However, the main action being upheld is a future and uncertain legal situation. The alteration or annulment of the contested decision, which is sought by the applicant, had not occurred when the cross-claim was brought and is dependent on the judgment to be handed down by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the merits of the main action (see, to that effect, order of 25 January 2023, SC [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) , T‑785/21, not published, EU:T:2023:44, paragraph 27). 30 It follows from the foregoing that the intervener has not established its interest in bringing proceedings against the contested decision within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraphs 25 and 28 above. 31 Accordingly, the plea of inadmissibility raised by EUIPO must be upheld and the intervener’s cross-claim must be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 32 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 33 Since the intervener has been unsuccessful in its cross-claim, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO relating to those proceedings, in accordance with the form of order sought by EUIPO. 34 The applicant requested that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] order EUIPO to pay the costs. However, EUIPO was successful in its claims relating to the cross-claim. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs incurred in the present proceedings. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The cross-claim is dismissed as inadmissible. 2. Aclass A/S shall bear its own costs and pay those of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) incurred in the cross-claim proceedings. 3. TourCom shall bear its own costs incurred in the cross-claim proceedings. Luxembourg, 4 September 2026. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] K. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.