# C_2016428EN.01000301.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/3 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2016 in Case T-806/14: August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-417/16 P)

(2016/C 428/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr, P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 in case T-806/14 |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in case R0644/2014-5, alternatively remit the case back to the General Court, if necessary |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the appellant before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

| I. | First Ground of Appeal: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009( 1 ) — Application of wrong Criteria
1.
The General Court wrongly requires for the mark to be distinctive that it ‘departs significantly from the standard or customs of the sector’. It applies the test for three-dimensional trademarks consisting of the appearance of the goods themselves without a word or graphical element, which test is stricter than the test for normal marks. This stricter test should not have been applied because the mark applied for is a two-dimensional mark that contains a graphical element. The application of the stricter test contradicts well-established case law. 2.
The General Court errs when it bases its finding on the judgment in Storck v OHIM, C-25/05 P, EU:C:2006:422. That case is in no way comparable with the present case as it related to a (packed) product without any graphical and/or word element. 3.
The application of stricter rules than those applicable to word marks and device marks is further not justified because the scope of the mark applied for is even narrower than the scope of a registration covering the graphical element only would be. By applying the stricter rules the General Court infringed Article 7(l)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009, which provides for that (only) trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered. | 1. | The General Court wrongly requires for the mark to be distinctive that it ‘departs significantly from the standard or customs of the sector’. It applies the test for three-dimensional trademarks consisting of the appearance of the goods themselves without a word or graphical element, which test is stricter than the test for normal marks. This stricter test should not have been applied because the mark applied for is a two-dimensional mark that contains a graphical element. The application of the stricter test contradicts well-established case law. | 2. | The General Court errs when it bases its finding on the judgment in Storck v OHIM, C-25/05 P, EU:C:2006:422. That case is in no way comparable with the present case as it related to a (packed) product without any graphical and/or word element. | 3. | The application of stricter rules than those applicable to word marks and device marks is further not justified because the scope of the mark applied for is even narrower than the scope of a registration covering the graphical element only would be. By applying the stricter rules the General Court infringed Article 7(l)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009, which provides for that (only) trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1. | The General Court wrongly requires for the mark to be distinctive that it ‘departs significantly from the standard or customs of the sector’. It applies the test for three-dimensional trademarks consisting of the appearance of the goods themselves without a word or graphical element, which test is stricter than the test for normal marks. This stricter test should not have been applied because the mark applied for is a two-dimensional mark that contains a graphical element. The application of the stricter test contradicts well-established case law. | | | | | | |
| 2. | The General Court errs when it bases its finding on the judgment in Storck v OHIM, C-25/05 P, EU:C:2006:422. That case is in no way comparable with the present case as it related to a (packed) product without any graphical and/or word element. | | | | | | |
| 3. | The application of stricter rules than those applicable to word marks and device marks is further not justified because the scope of the mark applied for is even narrower than the scope of a registration covering the graphical element only would be. By applying the stricter rules the General Court infringed Article 7(l)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009, which provides for that (only) trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered. | | | | | | |

| II. | Second Ground of Appeal: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 Non-application of the Principle of Speciality
4.
The General Court qualified the relevant goods in an overly broad sense as inexpensive, everyday consumer goods, the purchase of which is not preceded by a lengthy period of reflection. This led to the General Court’s wrong conclusion that the relevant public would have a low level of attention particularly with respect to the features on the packaging. 5.
The General Court should rather have analysed with respect to the very specific products (i.e., confectionary, chocolate, chocolate products, pastries and ice-creams) what level of attention the consumers do apply and what role the very specific packaging as covered by the mark applied for thereby plays. The General Court missed to look at the very typical purchase situation with respect to those products. 6.
By not taking into account the specifics of the relevant goods the General Court did not apply the principle of speciality. Had the General Court done it correctly, it would have taken into account that consumers of the relevant goods are used to give a high level of attention to the colours, the shape and the design of the packaging. The consumers of the relevant goods would have no problems at all to identify the source of the products on the mere basis of the combination of lines, colours and shapes as it is covered by the mark applied for. | 4. | The General Court qualified the relevant goods in an overly broad sense as inexpensive, everyday consumer goods, the purchase of which is not preceded by a lengthy period of reflection. This led to the General Court’s wrong conclusion that the relevant public would have a low level of attention particularly with respect to the features on the packaging. | 5. | The General Court should rather have analysed with respect to the very specific products (i.e., confectionary, chocolate, chocolate products, pastries and ice-creams) what level of attention the consumers do apply and what role the very specific packaging as covered by the mark applied for thereby plays. The General Court missed to look at the very typical purchase situation with respect to those products. | 6. | By not taking into account the specifics of the relevant goods the General Court did not apply the principle of speciality. Had the General Court done it correctly, it would have taken into account that consumers of the relevant goods are used to give a high level of attention to the colours, the shape and the design of the packaging. The consumers of the relevant goods would have no problems at all to identify the source of the products on the mere basis of the combination of lines, colours and shapes as it is covered by the mark applied for. |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 4. | The General Court qualified the relevant goods in an overly broad sense as inexpensive, everyday consumer goods, the purchase of which is not preceded by a lengthy period of reflection. This led to the General Court’s wrong conclusion that the relevant public would have a low level of attention particularly with respect to the features on the packaging. | | | | | | |
| 5. | The General Court should rather have analysed with respect to the very specific products (i.e., confectionary, chocolate, chocolate products, pastries and ice-creams) what level of attention the consumers do apply and what role the very specific packaging as covered by the mark applied for thereby plays. The General Court missed to look at the very typical purchase situation with respect to those products. | | | | | | |
| 6. | By not taking into account the specifics of the relevant goods the General Court did not apply the principle of speciality. Had the General Court done it correctly, it would have taken into account that consumers of the relevant goods are used to give a high level of attention to the colours, the shape and the design of the packaging. The consumers of the relevant goods would have no problems at all to identify the source of the products on the mere basis of the combination of lines, colours and shapes as it is covered by the mark applied for. | | | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1

---