ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)
法院命令(法庭决定是否受理上诉)
18 April 2023 (*)
2023年4月18日(*)
(Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request demonstrating that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal allowed to proceed)
(上诉——欧盟商标——关于是否允许上诉继续进行的裁定——《法院程序规则》第170b条——证明问题对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展具有重要意义的请求——允许上诉继续进行)
In Case C‑751/22 P, 在C-751/22 P案中,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 8 December 2022,
根据《欧洲联盟法院规约》第56条,于2022年12月8日提起上诉,
Shopify Inc., established in Ottawa (Canada), represented by M. Pemsel and S. Völker, Rechtsanwälte,
Shopify Inc.,成立于渥太华(加拿大),由M. Pemsel和S. Völker律师事务所代理。
appellant, 上诉人
the other parties to the proceedings being:
诉讼的其他当事方是
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),
欧盟知识产权局（EUIPO）、
defendant at first instance,
一审被告、
Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi, residing in Fiano (Italy),
马西莫-卡洛-阿尔贝托-罗西（Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi），现居意大利菲亚诺、
Salvatore Vacante, residing in Berlin (Germany),
萨尔瓦多·瓦坎特,居住在德国柏林,
Shoppi Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),
Shoppi Ltd,成立于英国伦敦,
interveners at first instance,
一审干预者,
THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)
法庭(决定是否受理上诉的法庭)
composed of L. Bay Larsen, Vice-President of the Court, D. Gratsias and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges,
由法院副院长L. Bay Larsen、法官D. Gratsias和M. Ilešič(报告员)组成,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
Registrar：A. Calot Escobar、
having regard to the proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, A.M. Collins,
考虑到法官兼报告员的建议,并在听取了总法律顾问A.M. Collins的意见后,
makes the following 作出以下规定
Order
1 By its appeal, Shopify Inc. asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 October 2022, Shopify v EUIPO – Rossi and Others (Shoppi) (T‑222/21, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2022:633), by which the latter dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi, Mr Salvatore Vacante and Shoppi Ltd and, on the other hand, Shopify (‘the decision at issue’).
1 By its appeal, Shopify Inc. asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 October 2022, Shopify v EUIPO – Rossi and Others (Shoppi) (T‑222/21, 'the judgment under appeal', EU:T:2022:633), by which the latter dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi, Mr Salvatore Vacante and Shoppi Ltd and, on the other hand, Shopify ('the decision at issue').
The request that the appeal be allowed to proceed
请求允许上诉继续进行
2 Under the first paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of EUIPO is not to proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so.
2 根据《欧洲联盟法院规约》第58a条第一款,除非法院首先裁定允许上诉,否则不得对普通法院就EUIPO独立上诉委员会的裁决作出的决定提起上诉。
3 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, an appeal is to be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.
3 根据该法规第58a条第三款,如果上诉对欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展有重大意义,则应允许根据《法院程序规则》中规定的详细规则进行全部或部分上诉。
4 Under Article 170a(1) of those rules, in the situations referred to in the first paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, the appellant is to annex to the appeal a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, setting out the issue raised by the appeal that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and containing all the information necessary to enable the Court of Justice to rule on that request.
4 根据该规则第170a(1)条,在该法规第58a条第一段所述的情况下,上诉人应在上诉书中附上一份请求,请求允许上诉继续进行,并阐明上诉所提出的对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展具有重要意义的问题,同时包含所有必要信息,以便法院能够就该请求作出裁决。
5 In accordance with Article 170b(1) and (3) of those rules, the Court’s decision on the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed is to be taken as soon as possible in the form of a reasoned order.
5 根据上述规则第170b(1)和(3)条,法院应尽快以合理命令的形式对允许上诉的请求做出裁决。
Arguments of the appellant
上诉人的论点
6 In support of its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant submits that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.
6 为支持其允许上诉的请求,上诉人提出,上诉提出的问题对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性和发展具有重要意义。
7 First of all, it states that its appeal is based on a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 53(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.
7 首先,它声称其上诉理由仅基于一项理由,即指控违反了2009年2月26日关于欧盟商标的第207/2009号理事会条例(EC)第53(1)条(OJ 2009 L 78,第1页)以及该条例第8(1)(b)条。
8 More specifically, the appellant states that it criticises the General Court for having disregarded, in paragraphs 96 to 104 of the judgment under appeal, the evidence relating to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark in the United Kingdom, on the ground that, in invalidity proceedings, an applicant must be able to prohibit the use of the contested mark not only on the date on which that mark was filed, but also on the date of the decision at issue and that, in the present case, that decision was issued after the expiry of the transition period provided for in Article 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’).
8 更具体地说,上诉人指出,它批评普通法院在上诉判决的第96至104段中无视与earlier mark在英国的显著性增强有关的证据,理由是在无效诉讼中,申请人不仅必须能够禁止在争议商标申请之日使用该商标,还必须能够禁止在相关裁决之日使用该商标,而在本案中,该裁决是在《关于大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国退出欧洲联盟和欧洲原子能共同体的协定》(OJ 2020 L 29,第7页;"退出协定")第127条规定的过渡期届满后作出的。
9 In so doing, the General Court disregarded the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, under which all the conditions for the success of an invalidity action must be fulfilled at the filing date or the priority date of the contested mark.
9 在此过程中,普通法院无视第207/2009号条例第53(1)条第二分段的措辞,根据该条款,无效诉讼的所有成功条件必须在提交日或有争议商标的优先权日满足。
10 Next, the appellant states that, if the General Court had held that only the filing date of the contested mark was relevant for the purpose of determining whether the conditions for the success of an invalidity action are fulfilled, it would have had to annul the decision at issue. It adds that, if the Board of Appeal had taken into account the evidence relating to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark in respect of the United Kingdom, the Board of Appeal would have found that that mark had enhanced distinctiveness and, therefore, that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
10 接下来,上诉人指出,如果普通法院认为,在确定无效诉讼是否满足成功条件时,只有争议商标的申请日期是相关的,那么它就必须撤销有争议的决定。它补充说,如果上诉委员会考虑了与英国earlier mark商标增强显著性有关的证据,上诉委员会就会认定该商标具有增强的显著性,因此,争议商标之间存在混淆的可能性。
11 In addition, the appellant submits that the single ground on which it relies in support of its appeal raises the question of the date on which it is necessary to assess whether the conditions of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 are satisfied. More specifically, it is necessary to determine whether an applicant for a declaration of invalidity is required to establish the existence of a relative ground for refusal only on the priority date or the filing date of the contested mark or whether it may be required to establish in addition the existence of such a ground on the date on which EUIPO takes its decision.
11 此外,上诉人提出,其支持上诉的唯一理由提出了一个日期问题,即有必要评估是否符合第207/2009号条例第53(1)条规定的条件。更具体地说,有必要确定无效宣告申请人是否只需要在优先权日或有争议商标的申请日证明存在相对的驳回理由,还是需要另外证明在EUIPO作出决定之日存在这样的理由。
12 Lastly, in order to demonstrate the significance of that issue with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, the appellant puts forward eight arguments.
12 最后,为了证明这一问题对于欧盟法律的统一、一致和发展具有重要意义,上诉人提出了八个论点。
13 By its first argument, it submits that that issue arises in all invalidity proceedings in which the earlier mark or the scope of the protection conferred by it is affected by events occurring after the priority date or the filing date of the contested mark, such as a loss of distinctiveness or reputation, a change in the law applicable to the proceedings or the withdrawal of a Member State from the European Union, as is the case here.
13 按照其第一个论点,它认为,在所有无效诉讼中,如果earlier mark或其授予的保护范围受到优先权日或争议商标申请日之后发生的事件的影响,例如丧失显著性或声誉、诉讼适用法律发生变化或成员国退出欧盟,都会产生这个问题,本案就是如此。
14 According to the appellant, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union will have an impact on a significant number of other invalidity and opposition proceedings relating to both earlier EU trade marks and earlier national marks. Clarification by the Court is therefore necessary both for users of the EU trade mark system and for national trade mark offices and courts, in particular in view of the fact that the issue raised concerns not only the effect of the Withdrawal Agreement on pending proceedings, but also all situations, frequently in intellectual property matters, where an earlier right ceases to exist in whole or in part during the proceedings.
14 根据上诉人所述,英国退出欧盟将对大量其他无效和异议程序产生影响,这些程序涉及先前的欧盟商标和先前的国家商标。因此,法院有必要对欧盟商标体系的使用者以及国家商标局和法院进行澄清,特别是考虑到所提出的问题不仅涉及退出协议对未决程序的影响,还涉及在知识产权事务中,先前的权利在程序期间全部或部分不复存在的情况。
15 By its second argument, the appellant claims that it is essential for the unity, consistency and development of EU law that all courts within the European Union apply EU law as it has been enacted by the EU legislature. By disregarding the clear wording of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, the General Court infringed the fundamental principle that courts within the European Union are bound by EU law and that they are required to exercise their power within the limits defined by the EU legislature.
15 根据其第二个论点,上诉人声称,欧盟内部所有法院适用欧盟立法机构颁布的欧盟法律,对于欧盟法律的统一、一致和发展至关重要。普通法院无视第207/2009号条例第53(1)条的明确规定,违反了欧盟内部法院受欧盟法律约束且必须在欧盟立法机构规定的范围内行使其权力的基本原则。
16 By its third argument, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal creates legal uncertainty. If the date of the decision of a Board of Appeal of EUIPO were also considered to be relevant for the purposes of assessing the existence of a relative ground for refusal in invalidity proceedings, this would seriously undermine the legal certainty of all proprietors of earlier marks in that they could not base their decision on whether to file an application for a declaration of invalidity on the information available to them, since they would not be able to anticipate how the situation would evolve on the date on which the Cancellation Division or the Board of Appeal takes its decision.
16 根据其第三个论点,上诉人认为,上诉判决造成了法律不确定性。如果EUIPO上诉委员会的决定日期也被视为与评估无效诉讼中是否存在相对拒绝理由有关,那么这将严重损害所有在先商标所有人的法律确定性,因为他们无法根据所掌握的信息决定是否申请无效宣告,因为他们无法预测在撤销部门或上诉委员会作出决定之日情况将如何发展。
17 By its fourth argument, the appellant submits that the issue raised by its appeal is significant with respect to the unity and consistency of EU law since it relates to both invalidity proceedings concerning EU trade marks and those relating to national trade marks in the Member States. Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1), and Article 53 of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as they provide for identical grounds for invalidity, must, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, referred to in particular in paragraph 32 of the judgment of 12 September 2019, Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (#darferdas?) (C‑541/18, EU:C:2019:725, paragraph 32), be interpreted in the same way.
17 依据其第四个论点,上诉人提出,其上诉所提出的问题对于欧盟法律的统一性和一致性具有重要意义,因为它既涉及欧盟商标的无效程序,也涉及成员国国内商标的无效程序。欧洲议会和理事会2015年12月16日第(EU)2015/2436号指令第5条(OJ 2015 L 336,第1页)和第207/2009号条例第53条就无效理由做出了相同的规定,根据法院的既定判例法,特别是2019年9月12日判决的第32段,即德国专利商标局(#darferdas?)(C-541/18,EU:C:2019:725,第32段),必须以相同的方式解释。
18 According to the appellant, it cannot be ruled out that an opposition or an application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier EU trade mark and relating to a mark or an application for registration may be resolved differently by trade mark offices or national courts according to the relevant date used to assess whether the conditions for upholding the opposition or invalidity action are satisfied, which would undermine legal certainty.
18 根据上诉人所述,不能排除以下情况:商标局或国家法院根据评估是否满足支持异议或无效诉讼的条件所使用的相关日期,对基于存在在先欧盟商标而提出的异议或无效宣告申请以及与商标或注册申请相关的异议或无效宣告申请作出不同的裁决,从而损害法律确定性。
19 By its fifth argument, the appellant submits that the opinion of the General Court gives rise to arbitrary exercise of power of the executive, in that it allows EUIPO, national trade mark offices and national courts to deliberately delay invalidity proceedings in order to wait for specific circumstances to emerge, such as the withdrawal of a Member State from the European Union or the expiry of a trade mark, or to wait until the evidence submitted on the priority date or the filing date of the contested mark in order to prove the reputation of an earlier mark is no longer relevant for demonstrating that reputation on the date on which the decision is adopted. According to the appellant, even the mere possibility of such arbitrary conduct would tarnish the trust in the independence of EUIPO and of the national trade mark offices and courts.
19 第五点,上诉人认为,普通法院的意见导致行政权力被任意行使,因为该意见允许EUIPO、国家商标局和国家法院故意拖延无效诉讼,以等待特定情况出现,例如成员国退出欧盟或商标到期,或者等待就优先权日期或争议商标的申请日期提交的证据,以证明earlier mark的声誉不再适用于证明在决定通过之日的声誉。上诉人认为,即使这种任意行为的可能性也会损害对EUIPO以及国家商标局和法院的独立性的信任。
20 By its sixth argument, the appellant alleges that the issue raised by its appeal is of crucial importance for users of the EU trade mark system. If the Court were to conclude that the date of the decision is also relevant, opponents and applicants for a declaration of invalidity would be required to produce constantly evidence of continued reputation of the mark, its genuine use and/or its enhanced distinctiveness, and trade mark offices and trade mark proprietors or trade mark applicants would then have to review that evidence constantly.
20 上诉人通过其第六个论点声称,其上诉提出的问题对于欧盟商标体系的使用者至关重要。如果法院得出结论认为决定日期也具有相关性,则无效宣告的反对者和申请人将需要不断提供证据证明商标的持续声誉、真实使用和/或增强的显著性,而商标局和商标所有人或商标申请人则必须不断审查这些证据。
21 By its seventh argument, the appellant asserts that the issue raised by its appeal is also significant with respect to the principles of territoriality and the unitary character of an EU trade mark as set out in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
21 上诉人通过其第七个论点声称,其上诉所提出的问题对于第207/2009号条例第1(2)条所规定的欧盟商标的属地性和统一性原则也很重要。
22 The question whether it is sufficient that a conflict between the earlier mark and the later mark exists at the priority date or at the filing date, that is to say, at a time when the earlier mark still conferred protection in the United Kingdom, or whether such a conflict must also exist on the date on which EUIPO takes its decision, has a significant impact on the principles of territoriality and the unitary character of the EU trade mark, which are two of the fundamental pillars of EU trade mark law.
22 问题是,earlier mark与在后商标之间的冲突在优先权日或申请日(即earlier mark仍在英国提供保护时)是否存在就足够了,还是EUIPO做出决定之日也必须存在这种冲突,这对欧盟商标的属地性和统一性原则有重大影响,而属地性和统一性是欧盟商标法的两大基本支柱。
23 By its eighth and final argument, the appellant submits that the issue raised by its appeal concerns the effectiveness of the EU trade mark. To require that the trade marks concerned must also be in conflict on the date of a decision by EUIPO would call into question the effectiveness of the protection conferred by the EU trade mark, in that any subsequent changes in the circumstances would be capable of retroactively depriving the EU trade mark of its effects.
23 在第八个也是最后一个论点中,上诉人提出,其上诉所提出的问题涉及欧盟商标的有效性。如果要求相关商标在EUIPO作出决定之日也必须存在冲突,那么欧盟商标所赋予的保护的有效性就会受到质疑,因为任何后续情况的变化都有可能追溯性地剥夺欧盟商标的效力。
Findings of the Court 法院的裁决
24 As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that the issues raised by its appeal are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (order of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann, C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
24 首先,必须指出,上诉人必须证明其上诉所提出的问题对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展具有重要意义(2021年12月10日的命令,EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann,C‑382/21 P,EU:C:2021:1050,第20段和所引用的判例法)。
25 Furthermore, as is apparent from the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, read together with Article 170a(1) and the second sentence of Article 170b(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must contain all the information necessary to enable the Court to give a ruling on whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed and to specify, where the appeal is allowed to proceed in part, the pleas in law or parts of the appeal to which the response must relate. Given that the objective of the mechanism provided for in Article 58a of that statute whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed is to restrict review by the Court to issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, only grounds of appeal that raise such issues and that are established by the appellant are to be examined by the Court in an appeal (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann, C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 21, and of 16 November 2022, EUIPO v Nowhere, C‑337/22 P, EU:C:2022:908, paragraph 24).
25 此外,从《欧洲联盟法院规约》第58a条第三段以及《程序规则》第170a(1)条和第170b(4)条第二句中可以明显看出,允许上诉的请求必须包含所有必要信息,以便法院能够裁定是否允许上诉,并在允许部分上诉的情况下,明确答复必须涉及的法律请求或上诉部分。鉴于该规约第58a条规定的机制旨在限制法院审查对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性和发展具有重要意义的问题,因此法院在上诉中仅审查上诉人提出的引起此类问题的上诉理由(2021年12月10日的命令,EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann,C‑382/21 P,EU:C:2021:1050,第21段,以及2022年11月16日的命令,EUIPO v Nowhere,C‑337/22 P,EU:C:2022:908,第24段)。
26 Accordingly, a request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must, in any event, set out clearly and in detail the grounds on which the appeal is based, identify with equal clarity and detail the issue of law raised by each ground of appeal, specify whether that issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and set out the specific reasons why that issue is significant according to that criterion. As regards, in particular, the grounds of appeal, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must specify the provision of EU law or the case-law that has been infringed by the judgment or order under appeal, explain succinctly the nature of the error of law allegedly committed by the General Court, and indicate to what extent that error had an effect on the outcome of the judgment or order under appeal. Where the error of law relied on results from an infringement of the case-law, the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must explain, in a succinct but clear and precise manner, first, where the alleged contradiction lies, by identifying the paragraphs of the judgment or order under appeal which the appellant is calling into question as well as those of the ruling of the Court of Justice or the General Court alleged to have been infringed, and, second, the concrete reasons why such a contradiction raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (order of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann, C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
26 因此,请求允许上诉的请求必须明确、详细地阐明上诉所依据的理由,同样明确、详细地确定每项上诉理由所提出的法律问题,说明该问题对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展是否重要,并说明根据该标准该问题为何重要的具体原因。特别是关于上诉理由,请求允许上诉的请求必须具体说明被上诉判决或命令所违反的欧盟法律或判例法条款,简明扼要地解释普通法院据称所犯法律错误的性质,并说明该错误对被上诉判决或命令的结果产生了多大影响。如果所依据的法律错误是由于违反判例法而导致的,则请求允许上诉的请求必须简明扼要、清晰准确地解释:首先,指明上诉人质疑的被上诉判决或命令的段落以及据称被违反的法院或普通法院裁决的段落,说明所指称的矛盾所在;其次,具体说明这种矛盾为何引起了对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展具有重要意义的争议(2021年12月10日的命令,EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann,C‑382/21 P,EU:C:2021:1050,第22段和所引用的判例法)。
27 In the present case, it should be noted, in the first place, that the appellant sets out with clarity and detail the single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, on which its appeal is based. More specifically, the appellant complains that the General Court disregarded that provision, in paragraphs 96 to 104 of the judgment under appeal, by holding that, in the context of invalidity proceedings, an appellant must be able to prohibit the use of the contested mark both on the date on which that mark was filed and on the date on which the Board of Appeal takes its decision.
27 在本案中,首先应当指出,上诉人明确而详细地陈述了上诉的唯一理由,即声称违反了第207/2009号条例第53(1)条,这是其上诉的依据。更具体地说,上诉人投诉普通法院在上诉判决的第96至104段中无视该条款,认为在无效诉讼中,上诉人必须能够禁止在提交有争议商标之日和上诉委员会作出决定之日使用该商标。
28 The appellant also sets out the nature of the errors of law allegedly committed by the General Court.
28 上诉人还陈述了普通法院据称犯下的法律错误的性质。
29 It submits that the General Court disregarded the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, under which all the conditions for the success of an invalidity action must be fulfilled at the filing date or the priority date of the contested mark, and adds that the General Court’s interpretation of that provision creates legal uncertainty.
29 它认为,综合法院忽视了第207/2009号条例第53(1)条第二分段的措辞,根据该条款,无效诉讼的所有成功条件必须在提交日或有争议商标的优先权日满足,并补充说,综合法院对该条款的解释造成了法律不确定性。
30 The appellant further submits that the General Court conflated invalidity proceedings with infringement proceedings by requiring that the applicant for a declaration of invalidity be able to prohibit the use of the contested mark on the date on which EUIPO takes its decision.
30 上诉人进一步指出,普通法院将无效程序与侵权程序混为一谈,要求无效宣告申请人能够在EUIPO做出裁决之日禁止使用有争议的商标。
31 Furthermore, according to the appellant, the General Court infringed the case-law of the Court of Justice arising from the judgment of 29 January 2020, Sky and Others (C‑371/18, EU:C:2020:45, paragraph 49), according to which, in the context of an application for a declaration of invalidity of EU trade marks, the decisive date for the purposes of identifying the applicable substantive law is the date on which the application for registration of the contested mark was made, and its own case-law arising from the judgments of 1 December 2021, Inditex v EUIPO –Ffauf Italia (ZARA) (T‑467/20, not published, EU:T:2021:842, paragraphs 59 to 61), and of 16 March 2022, Nowhere v EUIPO –Ye (APE TEES) (T‑281/21, EU:T:2022:139, paragraphs 28 and 29), relating to opposition proceedings and which is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to invalidity proceedings, under which the existence of a relative ground for refusal must be assessed as at the filing date of the application for registration of the trade mark.
31 此外,上诉人认为,综合法院违反了2020年1月29日Sky and Others案(C-371/18,EU:C:2020:45,第49段)的判例法,根据该判例法,在申请宣告欧盟商标无效的情况下,确定适用实体法的决定性日期是提出有争议商标的注册申请的日期,以及其自身根据2021年12月1日Inditex v EUIPO –Ffauf Italia (ZARA)案(T-467/20,未公布,EU:T:2021:842,第59至61段)和2022年3月16日Nowhere v EUIPO –Ye (APE TEES)案(T-281/21,EU:T:2022:139,第28和29段)的判决产生的判例法,该判例法涉及异议程序,经适当变通后适用于无效程序,根据该判例法,必须在提出商标注册申请之日评估是否存在相对的驳回理由。
32 Thus, it must be held that the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed identifies both the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal which the appellant disputes and the provision of EU law allegedly infringed as well as the paragraphs of the judgments of the Court of Justice and the General Court alleged to have been infringed.
32 因此,必须认定,上诉请求既指出了上诉人质疑的判决段落,也指出了据称被违反的欧盟法律条款,以及据称被违反的法院判决和普通法院判决的段落。
33 In the second place, the appellant states that the error of law allegedly committed by the General Court led it not to annul the decision at issue, by which the Board of Appeal refused to accept the evidence relating to the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark in respect of the United Kingdom, thus demonstrating that that error had an effect on the outcome of the judgment under appeal.
33 其次,上诉人指出,综合法院所犯的法律错误导致其没有撤销有争议的裁决,即上诉委员会拒绝接受有关earlier mark在英国具有更高知名度的证据,从而表明该错误对上诉判决的结果产生了影响。
34 In the third place, the appellant identifies clearly and in detail the issue of law raised by its single ground of appeal, in the present case whether, under Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, an applicant for a declaration of invalidity is required to establish the existence of a relative ground for refusal only on the priority date or the filing date of the contested mark, or whether it may be required to establish in addition the existence of such a ground on the date on which EUIPO takes its decision.
34 第三,上诉人明确而详细地指出了其单一上诉理由所引起的法律问题,在本案中,根据第207/2009号条例第53(1)条,无效宣告申请人是否只需要证明在优先权日或争议商标的申请日存在相对的驳回理由,还是需要证明在EUIPO作出决定之日存在这样的理由。
35 In the fourth place, in accordance with the burden of proof which lies with an appellant requesting that an appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant must demonstrate that, independently of the issues of law invoked in its appeal, the appeal raises one or more issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law, the scope of that criterion going beyond the judgment under appeal and, ultimately, its appeal (order of 16 November 2022, EUIPO v Nowhere, C‑337/22 P, EU:C:2022:908, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
35 第四,根据上诉人请求允许上诉的举证责任,上诉人必须证明,除了上诉中援引的法律问题外,上诉还提出了一个或多个对欧盟法律的统一性、一致性或发展具有重要意义的问题,该标准的范围超出了被上诉的判决,并最终超出了其上诉的范围(2022年11月16日的命令,EUIPO v Nowhere,C‑337/22 P,EU:C:2022:908,第32段和引用的判例法)。
36 In order to demonstrate that this is the case, it is necessary to establish both the existence and significance of such issues by means of concrete evidence specific to the particular case, and not simply arguments of a general nature (order of 16 November 2022, EUIPO v Nowhere, C‑337/22 P, EU:C:2022:908, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
36 为了证明情况确实如此,有必要通过特定案例的具体证据来证明此类问题的存在和重要性,而不仅仅是泛泛而谈(2022年11月16日命令,EUIPO v Nowhere,C‑337/22 P,EU:C:2022:908,第33段和所引用的判例法)。
37 In the present case, the appellant sets out the specific reasons why it considers that the issue of law raised by its appeal is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.
37 在本案中,上诉人陈述了它认为其上诉所提出的法律问题对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性和发展具有重要意义的具体理由。
38 In particular, it submits that that issue arises not only as regards the effects of the Withdrawal Agreement on pending proceedings, which potentially concern a significant number of invalidity and opposition proceedings relating to both earlier EU trade marks and earlier national trade marks, but also in all situations in which the earlier mark or the scope of the protection conferred by it is affected by events occurring after the priority date or the filing date of the contested mark, such as a loss of distinctiveness or reputation, or a change in the law applicable to the proceedings.
38 特别是,它提出,这个问题不仅涉及《撤销协议》对未决诉讼的影响,可能涉及大量与早期欧盟商标和早期国家商标相关的无效和异议诉讼,还涉及earlier mark或其保护范围受到优先权日或争议商标申请日之后发生的事件影响的所有情况,例如丧失显著性或声誉,或诉讼适用法律发生变化。
39 Accordingly, it is apparent from the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed that the issue raised by the present appeal goes beyond the scope of the judgment under appeal and, ultimately, that of the appeal.
39 因此,从请求中可以明显看出,允许上诉继续进行,本上诉提出的问题超出了上诉判决的范围,最终超出了上诉的范围。
40 In the light of the matters set out by the appellant, it must be held that this request that the appeal be allowed to proceed demonstrates to the requisite legal standard that this appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.
40 根据上诉人提出的事项,必须认定,允许上诉继续进行的请求符合必要的法律标准,即上诉提出的问题对于欧盟法律的统一性、一致性和发展具有重要意义。
41 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the appeal should be allowed to proceed.
41 鉴于上述考虑,应允许上诉继续进行。
Costs
42 Under Article 170b(4) of the Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, having regard to the criteria set out in the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the proceedings are to continue in accordance with Articles 171 to 190a of those rules.
42 根据《议事规则》第170b(4)条,如果考虑到《欧洲联盟法院规约》第58a条第3款规定的标准,允许全部或部分进行上诉,则诉讼程序应按照这些规则第171条至第190a条继续进行。
43 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.
43 根据《议事规则》第137条,适用于根据该规则第184(1)条提起的上诉程序,关于诉讼费用的裁决应在结束诉讼程序的判决或命令中作出。
44 Accordingly, since the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must be allowed, the costs must be reserved.
44 因此,既然必须允许继续上诉,就必须预留费用。
On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:
基于上述理由,法院(负责裁定上诉是否可受理的分庭)特此命令:
1. The appeal is allowed to proceed.
1. 允许上诉。
2. The costs are reserved.
2. 费用已预留。
Luxembourg, 18 April 2023.
卢森堡,2023年4月18日。
A. Calot Escobar A. Calot Escobar | | L. Bay Larsen L. Bay Larsen |
Registrar | | President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed
决定是否受理上诉的商会主席 |