Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 –
Bopp v EUIPO (Representation of an equilateral octagon)

(Case T‑460/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a blue octagonal frame — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. 

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a blue octagonal frame

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))

(see paras 51-53, 63, 64, 66)

2. 

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute 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

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

(see paras 54-56)

3. 

EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion — Registration of a new trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Burden of proof

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 76(1))

(see para. 60)

4. 

EU trade mark — Decisions of EUIPO — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice

(Council Regulation No 207/2009)

(see para. 65)

5. 

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies

(Council Regulation No 207/2009)

(see para. 69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2017 (Case R 1954/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a blue octagonal frame as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Mr Carsten Bopp to pay the costs.