关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

欧洲联盟

EU082-j

返回

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – General Court of the European Union [2024]: Google LLC v EUIPO and EPay AD, Case No. T‑78/23

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 4

 

General Court of the European Union [2024]: Google LLC v EUIPO and EPay AD, Case No. T‑78/23

 

Date of judgment: June 12, 2024

Issuing authority: General Court of the European Union

Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Administrative)

Subject matter: Trademarks

Plaintiff: Google LLC

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Keywords: EU Trademark, Opposition proceedings, Earlier trademark, Relative ground for refusal, Likelihood of confusion, Low distinctiveness of trademark

 

Basic facts: On October 17, 2019, Google LLC (the plaintiff) filed an application with EUIPO to register the word sign GPAY for goods and services in Classes 9 and 36 of the Nice Classification.

 

On February 4, 2020, EPay AD (the intervener) filed a notice of opposition to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the aforementioned goods and services. The opposition was based on the below figurative mark, registered in Bulgaria for goods and services in Classes 9 and 36 of the Nice Classification:

 

Following the plaintiff’s request, EUIPO invited the intervener to provide proof of genuine use of the earlier mark. The intervener complied with that request within the prescribed period.

 

On September 30, 2021, the Opposition Division determined that genuine use of the earlier mark had been proven only in connection with electronic payment services. As these services correspond to “financial affairs” and monetary affairs” included in the earlier mark’s list of services in Class 36, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

 

On October 13, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Opposition Division.

 

The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Opposition Division had not erred in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark in respect of the goods and services covered by the mark applied for.

 

The plaintiff, Google LLC, sought to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office. The plaintiff argued that the entire relevant Bulgarian public understands the semantic content of the basic English word “pay”, which is present in the marks at issue. As a result, the plaintiff contended that this common element is non-distinctive and does not affect the assessment of the similarity between the marks. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that, given the non-distinctive character of “pay” and the presence of the letter “g”, which is inherently distinctive and positioned at the beginning of the applied for mark, there is no likelihood of confusion.

 

Held: The General Court dismissed the action, confirming the likelihood of confusion, and ordered Google LLC to pay the costs.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to the strength of trademarks: The Court was bound to examine two elements of the trademarks in question that were viewed as possibly weak.  

 

First, the Court needed to look at the common English word “pay”. The Board of Appeal held that if the public understands a common English word, it becomes a very weak element of the trademark in question. However, if the word is not understood by the public, it is considered to be distinctive.

 

The Court first recalled that, according to case law, knowledge of a foreign language cannot generally be assumed. In territories where the relevant language is not the native language of the population, such knowledge must be proven unless it is a well-known fact that the target public in those territories possesses sufficient knowledge of the language of the sign. The plaintiff did not prove that the relevant Bulgarian public, as a whole, would understand the meaning of the word “pay”.

 

Second, the distinctiveness of individual letters was analyzed. The Board of Appeal held that the letter “e” can be understood as an abbreviation of electronic and is therefore considered very weak; the letter “g”, having no particular meaning, should be perceived as possessing average distinctiveness. In assessing the arguments regarding the distinctiveness of the letter “g”, the Court noted that, since the contested mark is a word mark, it is necessarily written in a standard font. Therefore, the Court did not agree with the plaintiff’s argument that the letter “g” is the dominant and visually striking element of the contested mark.

 

Since the plaintiff did not succeed in challenging the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark for a non-negligible portion of the relevant Bulgarian public, the Court upheld the Board of Appeal’s finding. The Court agreed that the likelihood of confusion among a segment of the relevant Bulgarian public was sufficient to uphold the opposition.          

 

Relevant legislation:

 

·       Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark