Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:527
Date: 2018-09-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Ireland

summary of the evidence on enhanced distinctiveness’ as part of its observations made before the Board of Appeal. That evidence included, in particular, explanations as to the use and history of the mark going back to 1890 with examples of volumes of sales, advertising expenditure and promotional activities. The applicant also states that that evidence was analysed separately by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision, which came to the conclusion that the probative value of that evidence was limited or that it failed sufficiently to establish recognition of the earlier mark on the part of the relevant public. However, the applicant takes the view that, if the evidence had been assessed overall and as a whole, it would have been clear that the earlier French mark has enhanced distinctiveness as a result of its long-lasting and intensive use. 82 EUIPO takes the view that that argument is inadmissible. For its part, the intervener submits that the applicant did not submit relevant information to the Board of Appeal establishing the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark. 83 It is necessary to examine, first of all, EUIPO’s argument concerning the admissibility of the third part of the single plea in law. 84 Pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application must contain the pleas in law, the arguments relied on and a summary of those pleas in law. That information must be sufficiently clear and precise in order to allow the other parties to the proceedings before the Court to submit their response and for the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information (judgment of 23 April 2015, Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX), T‑282/13, not published, EU:T:2015:226, paragraph 32). 85 In the present case, as EUIPO pointed out, the complaint put forward in the third part of the single plea in law is not developed. The applicant merely alleges that, in an overall assessment of the evidence presented before the Board of Appeal, ‘it becomes quite apparent’ that the earlier mark has enhanced distinctiveness, without explaining the reasons why the contested decision was wrong in that regard. 86 On that point, it must therefore be found that the applicant does not indicate how exactly the assessment of the evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal is incorrect, even though that detailed assessment set out over several pages, in paragraphs 21 to 35 of the contested decision, rejects that evidence as being essentially devoid of probative value or as having no link to the relevant period. 87 Consequently, in the absence of any arguments on the part of the applicant allowing for any of the findings made by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision to be called into question specifically or making it possible to understand on what basis an overall assessment of all that evidence could be sufficient to call those findings into question, the third part of the single plea in law must be declared inadmissible. 88 Accordingly, the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be rejected as unfounded in respect of the first and second parts and as inadmissible in respect of the third part. 89 The action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 90 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 Chefaro Ireland DAC to pay the costs. Frimodt Nielsen Forrester Perillo Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 September 2018. E. Coulon S. Frimodt Nielsen Registrar President * Language of the case: English.