CJEU backs EUIPO in ‘Champion’ trademark dispute
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in favour of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), finding that it correctly dismissed an opposition based on the ‘Champion’ trademark.
The decision was handed down on Thursday, October 5, by a five-judge panel.
They stated that oil lubricants company Wolf Oil, the opponent, must pay its own costs and dismissed its appeal against the EUIPO, which had found that rival SCT Lubricant’s ‘Chempioil’ mark does not infringe Wolf Oil’s ‘Champion’ mark.
STC initially filed the ‘Chempioil’ trademark in March 2011, and was granted EU registration number 1,076,327 for goods in classes 1, 3 and 4.
In January 2012, Wolf Oil filed a notice of opposition claiming a likelihood of confusion with its ‘Champion’ mark, which was registered in the same classes in November 2010 and given EU trademark number 1,059,799.
The opposition was successful, and in July 2013 the opposition division upheld the opposition, stating there was a “likelihood of confusion”.
Two months later the back and forth continued, with SCT lodging an appeal before the EUIPO. An appeals board then annulled the opposition division’s decision. The board stated that despite their “visual and phonetic similarities, the relevant public would draw a distinction between the signs at issue”.
The General Court dismissed Wolf Oil’s subsequent appeal against that ruling.
Wolf Oil alleged “a distortion of the evidence and a failure to state reasons, in the context of the examination of the first plea in the action at first instance”, as it lodged its appeal to the CJEU.
It also stated the General Court erred in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, including by presuming “even people who do not speak basic English or French are able to understand the meaning” of ‘Champion’.
Furthermore, Wolf Oil wanted the EUIPO and SCT Lubricants to pay all the costs.
But the CJEU ruling read: “It must be held that the appellant merely criticises the reasoning of the judgment which considered that the sign ‘Chempioil’ did not convey any clear concept.
“In so doing, without precisely identifying the evidence which the General Court allegedly distorted, the first ground of appeal must therefore be regarded as inadmissible,” it further explained.
Wolf Oil was ordered to pay all costs.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories:
Patent cases to drop 13% at district courts in 2017: report
Trademark ownership not under Brussels Regulation article 22(4): CJEU
