Prada v EUIPO (EU trade mark - Order) [2019] EUECJ C-510/18P_CO (14 February 2019)

Prada v EUIPO (EU trade mark - Order) [2019] EUECJ C-510/18P_CO (14 February 2019)

The appeal was dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded because the arguments raised by Prada SA either challenged factual assessments not subject to review on appeal or were ineffective in the absence of a demonstrated link between the marks.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EUECJ C-510/18P_CO
Parties
Appellant: Prada SA; Defendant at First Instance: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); Intervener at First Instance: The Rich Prada International PT
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
EU Trade Mark, Opposition Proceedings, Appeal Procedure, Likelihood of Confusion, Reputation of Trade Mark
Intellectual Property Law European Union Law EU Trade Mark Opposition Proceedings Appeal Procedure Likelihood of Confusion Reputation of Trade Mark

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prada SA

Appellant

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant at First Instance

The Rich Prada International PT

Intervener at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the link between the marks at issue under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
  2. 2 Whether the General Court erred in assessing detriment to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark
  3. 3 Whether the General Court failed to assess unfair advantage

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded because the arguments raised by Prada SA either challenged factual assessments not subject to review on appeal or were ineffective in the absence of a demonstrated link between the marks.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Prada SA shall bear its own costs.