You-Q BV, v Apple Corps Ltd, (OHIM) [2013] EUECJ C-294/12 (14 May 2013)

You-Q BV, v Apple Corps Ltd, (OHIM) [2013] EUECJ C-294/12 (14 May 2013)

The appeal was dismissed because the alleged errors related to factual assessments, which are not reviewable on appeal absent distortion, and because the General Court correctly applied Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 in finding that an overlap of publics and a link between the marks could exist even where the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EUECJ C-294/12
Parties
Appellant: You-Q BV; Defendant at First Instance: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); Intervener at First Instance: Apple Corps Ltd
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Decision (court of Justice of the European Union)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Trade Mark, Opposition Proceedings, Reputation of Trade Marks, Article 8(5) Regulation No 40/94, Likelihood of Confusion, Unfair Advantage, Distinctive Character
Intellectual Property European Union Law Community Trade Mark Opposition Proceedings Reputation of Trade Marks Article 8(5) Regulation No 40/94 Likelihood of Confusion Unfair Advantage +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

You-Q BV

Appellant

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant at First Instance

Apple Corps Ltd

Intervener at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Decision (court of Justice of the European Union)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in its application of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 regarding the overlap of relevant publics and the existence of unfair advantage in trade mark opposition proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the General Court made errors of law in its assessment of the similarity of signs, reputation of earlier marks, and the link between the marks.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the alleged errors related to factual assessments, which are not reviewable on appeal absent distortion, and because the General Court correctly applied Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 in finding that an overlap of publics and a link between the marks could exist even where the goods are dissimilar, thus supporting the finding of likely unfair advantage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • You-Q BV shall pay the costs.