Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:586
Date: 2025-06-11
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment
Origin: Germany

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2025 – SHS v EUIPO (Pure Steel+) (Case T‑462/24) ( EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark Pure Steel+ – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Assessment of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion – Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 ) 1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paragraph 12) 2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive character of a sign – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paragraph 13) 3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Figurative mark Pure Steel+ (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paragraphs 27, 28, 31-33, 76) 4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate consideration of the pleas in law having regard to every one of the products or services covered by the application for registration – Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register – Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)) (see paragraphs 37, 38) 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 – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paragraphs 48-51) 6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of good administration – The Office’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case (see paragraphs 52-55) 7. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Composite mark – Taking into account the overall perception of the mark by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paragraph 56) 8. 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 – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paragraphs 61, 62) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders SHS – Stahl-Holding-Saar GmbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.