Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:139
Date: 2011-03-10
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Poland

summary published at ECR I‑20, paragraph 17). 75 That said, the way in which the principles of equal treatment and sound administration are applied must be consistent with respect for legality. 76 Consequently, a person who files an application for registration of a sign as a trade mark cannot rely, to his advantage and in order to secure an identical decision, on a possibly unlawful act committed to the benefit of someone else (see, to that effect, order in Bild digital and ZVS, paragraph 18). 77 Moreover, for reasons of legal certainty and, indeed, of sound administration, the examination of any trade mark application must be stringent and full, in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered (OHIM v Erpo Möbelwerk, paragraph 45, and OHIM v BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen, paragraph 45). That examination must be undertaken in each individual case. The registration of a sign as a mark depends on specific criteria, which are applicable in the factual circumstances of the particular case and the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the sign at issue is caught by a ground for refusal (see, to that effect, as regards Article 3 of Directive 89/104, Case C-218/01 Henkel [2004] ECR I-1725, paragraph 62). 78 In the present case, it has become apparent that, contrary to what may have been the position with regard to certain earlier applications for the registration as trade marks of signs composed of numerals, the present application was caught by one of the grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94 because of the goods in respect of which registration was sought and because of the way in which the sign would be perceived by the relevant class of persons. 79 In those circumstances, the General Court was entitled to find, in paragraph 33 of the judgment under appeal, that, in the light of the conclusion which it had already reached in the preceding paragraphs of that judgment to the effect that registration of the sign ‘1000’ as a mark in respect of the goods referred to in Technopol’s application was incompatible with Regulation No 40/94, Technopol could not reasonably rely, for the purposes of casting doubt on that conclusion, on OHIM’s previous decisions. 80 It follows from the foregoing that the second ground of appeal cannot be upheld. 81 Since both grounds of appeal relied on by Technopol are unfounded, the appeal must be dismissed. Costs 82 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since OHIM has applied for costs to be awarded against Technopol and the latter has been unsuccessful, Technopol must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.