Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2020:424
Date: 2020-09-23
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Poland

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2020 – Polfarmex v EUIPO – Kaminski (SYRENA) (Case T‑677/19) (EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark SYRENA – Genuine use of the mark – Extent of use – Proof of use – Articles 18(1) and 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Duty to state reasons – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) 1. European Union trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Direction issued to the Office – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see para. 15) 2. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Meaning – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 38-47, 52, 72, 98) 3. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – No genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark SYRENA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 70, 73, 90, 104, 105, 129) 4. Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Infringement of essential procedural requirements – Reasons inadequately stated – Examination by the judicature of its own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 84) 5. European Union trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 58(1) and 94(1), first sentence) (see para. 85) 6. European Union trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 87) 7. European Union trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – No genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Partial use – Effect – Concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ covered by the registration (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 58(2)) (see paras 112-116) 8. European Union trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of EUIPO – Precluded (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95) (see para. 120) 9. European Union trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see para. 131) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Polfarmex and Mr Kaminski. Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1861/2018-2 and R 1840/2018-2) to the extent that it upheld the registration of the European Union trade mark No 9262767 in respect of ‘cars’ in Class 12 other than ‘racing cars’; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.