Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:348
Date: 2017-05-18
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE) (Case T‑375/16) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) 1. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 17-19) 2. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 29) 3. 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 — Concept — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 30-33, 41) 4. 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 34) 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 — Word mark INSTASITE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 35-37, 42-45, 50, 51) 6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 40) 7. 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 (see paras 63-66) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Case R 1742/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INSTASITE as an EU trade mark. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs.