Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:248
Date: 2018-05-03
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 May 2018 1. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged 2. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision — Decision closing invalidity proceedings following withdrawal of the application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 59) 3. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, first sentence of Art. 75) 4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Invalidity proceedings — Admissibility — Misuse of rights — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b) and (c) and 56(1)(a)) 1. An applicant must have an interest in seeing the contested measure annulled. Such an interest can be present only if the annulment of the measure is of itself capable of having legal consequences. The interest in the annulment of the contested act must be vested and present and is evaluated as at the date on which the action is brought. If the interest which an applicant claims concerns a future legal situation, the applicant must demonstrate that the prejudice to that future situation is already certain. Therefore, an applicant cannot rely on future and uncertain situations to justify its interest in applying for annulment of the contested act. (see paras 22, 31) 2. See text of the decision. (see paras 23-35) 3. Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark lays down the requirement that the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) must state reasons for its decisions. According to case-law, that obligation to state reasons has the same scope as that under Article 296 TFEU, pursuant to which the reasoning of the author of the act must be shown clearly and unequivocally, and its purpose is twofold: first, to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure taken in order to defend their rights and, second, to enable the European Union Courts to exercise their power to review the legality of the decision. (see para. 40) 4. According to Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark, an application for a declaration of invalidity based on an absolute ground for invalidity does not require the applicant to show an interest in bringing proceedings in so far as the aim of the absolute grounds for refusal of registration is to protect the public interest underlying them. Because the assessment of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) must be made exclusively in the light of the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, the potential or actual economic interest pursued by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity is irrelevant. Consequently, there can be no question of an ‘abuse of rights’ on the part of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity. It follows that the question of the abuse of rights is irrelevant in invalidity proceedings under Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. (see para. 60)