Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:99
Date: 2018-02-27
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2018 – Hansen Medical v EUIPO – Covidien (MAGELLAN) (Case T-222/16) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark MAGELLAN — Genuine use — Burden of proof — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Procedural irregularity committed by the Cancellation Division — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Oral proceedings — Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)) 1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect – Concept of (part of the goods or services) covered by the registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15 and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 25-28) 2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision by a department of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 44) 3. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 49, 50) 4. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Recourse to the oral procedure – Discretion of the Office (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 77(1)) (see para. 58) Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2016 (Cases R 3092/2014-2 and R 3118/2014-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Hansen Medical and Covidien. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Hansen Medical, Inc. to pay the costs. 2. Orders Hansen Medical, Inc. to pay the costs.