Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:814
Date: 2018-11-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Scope — No obligation to prove matters within common knowledge — Dispute before the General Court — Submission of documents to demonstrate the accuracy of a well-known fact (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) 2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) 3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) 4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of the descriptive character of a trade mark — Recognition of the descriptive character in relation to certain products falling within a category — Application of such recognition also to all the products in that category (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) 5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) 6. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark Exxtra Deep (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a)) 7. 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) 1. It is clear from the case-law that, first, the bodies of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) may base their decisions on well-known facts which have not been put forward by the applicant, without having to establish the accuracy of such facts, and, second, an applicant against whom EUIPO relies on such well-known facts may challenge their accuracy before the Court, EUIPO thus being, in such a situation and with regard to the principle of equality of arms, entitled to present documents to the Court in order to support the accuracy of a matter of common knowledge which was not established in the contested decision. By contrast, the applicant cannot be recognised as having the right to submit documents for the first time before the Court on the sole ground that they illustrate well-known facts which, moreover, are not alleged to have been put forward in the contested decision. Allowing such a right would limit the scope of the applicant’s obligation to provide, from the stage of the proceedings before EUIPO, all evidence in support of its pleas in law and arguments. (see para. 19) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 39) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 40-42) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 43) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 44, 65) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 48, 53-58, 64, 66) 7. See the text of the decision. (see para. 59)