Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:107
Date: 2022-03-02
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

summary form (see judgment of 24 September 2008, Anvil Knitwear v OHIM – Aprile e Aprile (Aprile), T‑179/07, not published, EU:T:2008:401, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited). 99 As regards, second, the applicant’s complaint concerning the Board of Appeal’s insufficient assessment of certain items of evidence submitted in the light of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, it is unambiguously apparent from paragraphs 36 and 37 of the contested decision, as is correctly stated by the intervener, that the Board of Appeal clearly established that the items of evidence in question referred to very specific individual examples, and did not demonstrate that making blocks would be understood either as a characteristic relating to toys or toy building blocks or as a sub-category of toys. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal also took account of those items of evidence during the assessment of the distinctive character of the contested mark. As a matter of fact, in paragraph 47 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal referred to paragraphs 27 to 41 thereof; a reference which includes paragraphs 36 and 37 of that decision. 100 By its criticism, the applicant does not in fact refer to an alleged failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons which is binding on the departments of EUIPO pursuant to Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001, but to the merits of those reasons. However, according to settled case-law, the obligation to state reasons is an essential procedural requirement which must be distinguished from the question whether the reasons given are correct, the latter being a matter going to the substantive legality of the measure at issue. The reasoning of a decision consists in a formal statement of the grounds on which that decision is based. If those grounds are vitiated by errors, the latter will vitiate the substantive legality of the decision, but not the statement of reasons in it, which may be adequate even though it sets out reasons which are incorrect (see judgment of 22 September 2016, Pensa Pharma v EUIPO, C‑442/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:720, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 101 The statement of reasons set out in the contested decision is clear and thus enables the applicant to know the reasons for the contested decision so as to be able to defend its rights, on the one hand, and the Court to exercise its power to review the legality of that decision, on the other. The arguments which the applicant has been able to put forward in the present proceedings bear witness to that fact. 102 Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the plea in law alleging a failure to state reasons must be rejected. 103 Since none of the admissible pleas in law raised by the applicant in support of its claims is well founded, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 104 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Distintiva Solutions S. Coop. Pequeña to pay the costs. De Baere Steinfatt Kecsmár Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 March 2022. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.