EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021TA0487

Case T-487/21: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert — Tactile position mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Scope of the law — Court acting of its own motion — Examination of distinctive character by the Board of Appeal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Sign not capable of constituting an EU mark — Absence of a precise and self-contained graphic representation of the tactile impression produced by the sign — Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

OJ C 35, 30.1.2023, p. 51–52 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.1.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/51


Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert)

(Case T-487/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert - Tactile position mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Scope of the law - Court acting of its own motion - Examination of distinctive character by the Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Sign not capable of constituting an EU mark - Absence of a precise and self-contained graphic representation of the tactile impression produced by the sign - Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 4 and 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 35/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Kaufmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2019-5);

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.


Top