Divergences in the recent case-law of the General Court of the European Union in the field of IP

Abstract The purpose of the present article is to identify certain important issues in relation to which there have been divergences in the recent case-law of the General Court of the EU in the field of IP law and to examine the way the EU judicature has dealt with them. It is structured as follows. Its introductory part presents succinctly the main reasons for inconsistencies in the case-law of the General Court in the field of IP law and the existing mechanisms aimed at preventing, eliminating or minimizing them. Its main part examines the following four questions of EU IP procedural and substantive law, reflecting diverging opinions of the General Court: (i) admissibility of an intervention before the General Court submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); (ii) admissibility of evidence presented for the first time before the General Court in proceedings concerning EU trade marks; (iii) effect of the termination of protection of earlier rights while proceedings are pending before EUIPO; and (iv) likelihood of confusion in the context of the comparison of goods in cases involving alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. The article concludes by stressing that, while the occurrence of divergences in the case-law of the General Court may be unavoidable, swift detection of the existence and the exact content of such issues is an important step towards resolving them effectively, in the interest of legal certainty and equality in the application of law.