Legal News

Alert: AG opines that appeals should be dismissed (The Tea Board v EUIPO)

Alert: AG opines that appeals should be dismissed (The Tea Board v EUIPO)
Published on: 31 May 2017
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Alert: AG opines that appeals should be dismissed (The Tea Board v EUIPO)
  • Original news
  • Key point

Article summary

IP & IT analysis: The Advocate General has opined that the Court of Justice should dismiss an appeal by The Tea Board and a cross-appeal by Delta Lingerie in a set of joined opposition cases relating to the DARJEELING trade mark. In his opinion, he considers the scope of the collective trade mark regime and the interaction of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of goods or services with collective marks, pursuant to Articles 66(1) and 66(2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. In this case, Delta Lingerie had sought registration of four figurative trade marks for the sign DARJEELING. The Tea Board had opposed the applications based on earlier EU collective word marks and figurative marks, pursuant to Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. The oppositions were dismissed by the EUIPO Cancellation Division and Second Board of Appeal. The Tea Board then further appealed to the General Court, which dismissed its appeal pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 and partly annulled the decision of the Second Board of Appeal pursuant to Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. The Tea Board’s current appeal argues that the Court of Justice should set aside in part the judgment of the General Court in so far as it dismissed the action with regard to the services covered by the mark applied for in class 35, other than ‘retailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’, and in class 38. Delta Lingerie’s cross-appeal argues that the judgment should be set aside in so far as it dismissed the action with regard to the goods covered by the mark applied for in class 25, and to the ‘retailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ in class 35. The Advocate General has opined that the grounds of appeal advanced by The Tea Board should be rejected as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded, and that those advanced by Delta Lingerie should be rejected on the basis that they do not show that the decision of the General Court is vitiated by flaws. Accordingly, he recommends that both appeals are dismissed, and that the decision of the General Court should stand. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents