Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2021:422
Date: 2021-07-07
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

summary of the contested decision set out in paragraphs 23 and 33 above. 42 Furthermore, it must be concluded that the descriptive character of the mark applied for is also not affected by the presence of a comma in that mark, contrary to what the applicant seems to assert. The comma does not influence the meaning conveyed by the mark applied for, as described in paragraph 32 above, and will have no impact on the link that the relevant public will make between that mark and the goods at issue. It follows that the applicant’s arguments that the Board of Appeal failed to take proper account of the comma are not such as to invalidate its conclusion that the mark applied for is descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001. 43 Lastly, it is also necessary to reject the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal erred in law in concluding, after observing that the word ‘intelligence’ could be attributed in the context at issue to a computer program carrying out data processing, that the mark applied for could be descriptive of the goods at issue. The Board of Appeal was fully entitled to conclude that the mark applied for was descriptive in respect of the goods at issue for the reasons set out in paragraphs 34 to 42 above. 44 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the Board of Appeal rightly established that there was a sufficiently direct and specific link between the mark applied for and the goods at issue, with the result that the mark applied for was descriptive of the goods at issue within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001. 45 Consequently, the applicant’s first plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001, must be rejected. The second plea, alleging an infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 46 The applicant argues that the Board of Appeal was wrong to find that the mark applied for was devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. 47 In that regard, the applicant submits that the Board of Appeal’s reasoning regarding the lack of distinctive character of the mark applied for was based entirely on the purely descriptive character of that mark, as found by the Board of Appeal in its analysis in relation to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001. According to the applicant, since the latter analysis is unfounded for the reasons submitted by the applicant in its first plea, the Board of Appeal’s objection under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 is also incorrect. 48 EUIPO disputes the applicant’s arguments. 49 It should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, it is sufficient that one of the absolute grounds for refusal within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 applies for the sign at issue not to be registrable as an EU trade mark (see judgment of 9 September 2020, Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller), T‑626/19, not published, EU:T:2020:399, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited). 50 Consequently, since the sign at issue is descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001, as is apparent from the examination of the first plea in law, and that that in itself justifies the refusal of registration, there is no need, in the present case, to consider the merits of the plea alleging infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 November 2018, Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING), T‑9/18, not published, EU:T:2018:827, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 51 It follows from the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 52 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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 form of order sought by EUIPO. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Micron Technology, Inc., to pay the costs. Kornezov Buttigieg Kowalik-Bańczyk Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 July 2021. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.