EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TJ0153
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021.
Gabriele Bachmann v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-153/20.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021.
Gabriele Bachmann v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Case T-153/20.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2021:70
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021 –
Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)
(Case T‑153/20)
(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1. |
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), First sentence) (see para. 26) |
2. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration – Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register – Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1) and 94(1)) (see paras 27-29, 71) |
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 – Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 41-44) |
4. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Application for registration of a sign for all the goods or services falling within the same category – Assessment of the descriptiveness of the sign concerning all the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 45) |
5. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods – Word mark LIGHTYOGA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 48, 58, 60, 68, 70, 72) |
6. |
Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 73) |
7. |
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 74-76) |
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 (Case R 2346/2019 2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTYOGA as an EU trade mark.
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs. |