EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TJ0168
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2022.
Magnetec GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application – Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Requirements of clarity and precision – Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-168/21.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2022.
Magnetec GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application – Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Requirements of clarity and precision – Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-168/21.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:605
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2022 –
Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue)
(Case T‑168/21) ( 1 )
(EU trade mark – Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a shade of light blue – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Limitation of goods designated by the trade mark application – Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Requirements of clarity and precision – Article 33(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
1. |
EU trade mark – Registration procedure – Withdrawal, restriction and amendment of the trade mark application – Application to restrict the list of goods or services – Procedures – Requirement of clarity (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1)) (see paragraphs 21, 22) |
2. |
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1)) (see paragraph 27) |
3. |
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paragraphs 48, 77) |
4. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 60, 78) |
5. |
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Signs of which a trade mark may consist – Colours or combinations of colours – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 61, 62) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2021 (Case R 217/2020-4); |
2. |
Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.