Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:809
Date: 2017-11-16
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to other documents not annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see paras 31, 32, 56) 4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 40) 5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Figurative mark metals (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 34-46) 6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 48-52) 7. EU 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 – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies – Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see para. 53) 8. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 57) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 (Case R 2361/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of figurative sign metals as an EU trade mark. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Nanogate AG to pay the costs.