Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:577
Date: 2007-10-04
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Appeals;General;Other marks
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) 2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) 3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 1. The criteria for assessing the distinctive character, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, of three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark. However, when those criteria are applied, the perception of the average consumer is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the appearance of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent of the appearance of the products it denotes. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element, and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark. In those circumstances, only a mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. Those principles, developed in relation to three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself, also apply where the trade mark applied for is a figurative mark consisting of the two-dimensional representation of that product. In such a case, the mark likewise does not consist of a sign unrelated to the appearance of the products it covers. (see paras 36-38) 2. In order to assess whether or not a Community trade mark has any distinctive character, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the overall impression given by it must be considered. That does not mean, however, that there is no need, first of all, to carry out a successive examination of the different presentational features used by this mark. It may be useful, in the course of the overall assessment, to examine each of the constituent features of the trade mark. (see para. 39) 3. The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to make findings of fact, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. That appraisal thus does not, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal. (see para. 49)