This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TJ0120
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 October 2018.
M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark fluo. — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-120/17.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 October 2018.
M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark fluo. — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-120/17.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 October 2018 –
M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v EUIPO (fluo.)
(Case T‑120/17)
(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark fluo. — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
1. |
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Direction issued to the Office @ Direction addressed to the Office—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 13) |
2. |
EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal—Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 16) |
3. |
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Aim—Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 22) |
4. |
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24) |
5. |
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 25) |
6. |
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Figurative mark fluo. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 34-43) |
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign fluo. as a European Union trade mark.
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2016 (Case R 863/2016-2); |
2. |
Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by M & T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |