Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:752
Date: 2015-10-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Cyprus

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 7 October 2015 1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) 2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word marks HALLOUMI and XAΛΛOYMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) 3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Certification marks (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) 4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability — Scope of the examination (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) 5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of non-discrimination — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 14, 15) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 18-22, 28) 3. Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark does not preclude the registration of certification marks. That regulation provides for the protection only of individual or collective Community trade marks. Certification marks can be registered as Community trade marks provided that there are no absolute grounds, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, preventing their registration. (see paras 34, 35) 4. The concept of general interest underlying Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 requires that signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought may be freely used by all. That provision prevents such signs or indications from being reserved to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as trade marks and prevents an undertaking from monopolising the use of a descriptive term to the detriment of other undertakings, including its competitors, for whom the extent of the vocabulary available to describe their own products is thereby reduced. The general interest or public interest in keeping descriptive marks free for third parties to use is pre-established and presumed. It follows that, where the mark applied for is descriptive, it is sufficient for the Board of Appeal to make the finding of that descriptive character without, however, having to examine the question whether, notwithstanding its descriptive character, there is in fact a public interest in keeping the mark applied for free for third parties to use. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, it need only be examined, on the basis of a given meaning of the word sign at issue, whether, from the point of view of the relevant public, there is a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the characteristics of the categories of goods or services in respect of which registration is sought. In that context, it is also worth recalling that the application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not depend on the existence of a real, current or serious need to leave a sign free. (see paras 53, 55) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 63-65)