Therefore, in so far as the applicant stressed the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark in the United Kingdom, the Board of Appeal found that that element was irrelevant for the purposes of the proceedings before it. Such a mark had to be reputed or possess enhanced distinctiveness ‘in the EU’ at the moment that the decision was taken (see also Communication 2/20, point 15 concerning reputation). The Board of Appeal inferred from this that evidence of reputation or enhanced distinctiveness relating to the United Kingdom could no longer sustain or contribute to the protection of an EU trade mark as from 1 January 2021, even if that evidence predated 1 January 2021. The Board of Appeal also referred to paragraph 2 of Communication 2/20 of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 on the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on certain aspects of the practice of EUIPO. ![]() As from 1 January 2021, EU trade mark legislation no longer applied to the United Kingdom and within its territory, unless and to the extent that such continued application was explicitly provided for by the withdrawal agreement. While EU law continued to apply to the United Kingdom and within its territory during a transition period, that transition period had ended on 31 December 2020 in accordance with Articles 126 and 127 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community ( OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7 ‘the withdrawal agreement’). In the first place, as regards the evidence concerning the United Kingdom, in paragraphs 71 to 74 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that, on 1 February 2020, the United Kingdom had withdrawn from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 TEU and had become a third country. The enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use Having regard to the written part of the procedure, Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator, Represented by V. Roth and A. Hogertz, lawyers,Ĭomposed, at the time of the deliberations, of M.J. Costeira, President, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur) and P. Zilgalvis, Judges, Shoppi Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), Salvatore Vacante, residing in Berlin (Germany), Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi, residing in Fiano (Italy), ![]() The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court, being ![]() Shopify Inc., established in Ottawa, Ontario (Canada), represented by S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers,Įuropean Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent, ![]() (EU trade mark – Cancellation proceedings – EU figurative mark Shoppi – Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit)) JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.ĮU trade mark – Cancellation proceedings – EU figurative mark Shoppi – Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit). Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2022 (Extracts). v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Cancellation proceedings – EU figurative mark Shoppi – Earlier EU word mark SHOPIFY – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark – Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and from Euratom (Brexit).#Case T-222/21. Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 October 2022 (Extracts).#Shopify Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |