Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:105
Date: 2024-02-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2024 – Dendiki v EUIPO – D Market (hepsiburada) (Case T‑172/23) (1) ( EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark hepsiburada – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) ) 1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see paragraphs 15, 19) 2. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Scope – Obligation to prove matters within common knowledge –None – Dispute before the General Court (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95(1)) (see paragraph 16) 3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Concept of bad faith – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paragraph 24) 4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue – Origin and use of the contested sign – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events leading up to the filing of the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 25, 26, 38, 49, 50, 55, 58) 5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 27, 28, 61) 6. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Restriction to the EU market – Precluded (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paragraph 35) 7. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Word mark hepsiburada (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 37, 40, 42, 48, 54, 60, 62) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Dendiki BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by D-Market Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; 3. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. 1 OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.