Court of Justice 25 June 2020, C-763/18 (Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 25 June 2020.)

Also known as

Advocate General Hogan opined that the General Court did not err in law in finding that online trading services relating to the operation of an online marketplace (Class 35) are at least slightly similar to retail services covering the retailing of sporting articles, applying the principles established in Praktiker and Tulliallan Burlington. The Opinion holds that, by analogy with a physical shopping arcade, an online marketplace platform constitutes a form of 'virtual' shopping arcade falling within the concept of 'retail services' under Class 35, regardless of whether the platform operator itself conducts direct sales or merely provides intermediation services to third-party sellers. Accordingly, the Advocate General proposed that the Court dismiss Wallapop's appeal, uphold the General Court's judgment annulling the Board of Appeal's finding of non-similarity of services, and order Wallapop to bear its own costs and those of Unipreus.AI