Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:916
Date: 2025-09-24
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Portugal

summary of the facts, the Board of Appeal described all the evidence put forward before the Opposition Division, as well as the reasons why the Opposition Division found that evidence to be insufficient. In paragraphs 10 and 14 of that decision, reference is also made to the evidence in the summary of the applicant’s submissions and arguments, as well as in the summary of the evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal. It is also apparent from paragraph 15 of the contested decision that the Board of Appeal took into account the evidence put forward before the Opposition Division in order to ascertain that the evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal supplemented that evidence and, consequently, was admissible. In addition, in order to be able to assess, in paragraphs 29 to 31 of the contested decision, the content of the annual reports of Grupo Confrasilvas, SGPS, S. A. for the period from 2016 to 2020, the Board of Appeal necessarily had to take into account not only Annex 4, submitted during the opposition proceedings, referred to in paragraph 29 of the contested decision and containing only the annual report for 2016, but also at least Annexes 5 to 8, submitted during the opposition proceedings and containing the annual reports for the years 2018 to 2020. Lastly, it is also apparent from paragraph 34 of the contested decision that the Board of Appeal necessarily examined all the evidence submitted by the applicant in order to be able to state that that evidence did not include any contract concluded by the applicant with a third party relating to construction works and services. 34 Third, the applicant submits that the evidence, analysed in its entirety, shows use of the earlier sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance. 35 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is applicable to proceedings before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, and under Article 177(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must contain, inter alia, the subject matter of the dispute, the pleas in law and arguments relied on and a summary of those pleas in law. It is settled case-law that, although specific points in the text of the application can be supported and completed by references to specific passages in the documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents cannot compensate for a failure to set out the essential elements of the legal argument, which must, under the provisions recalled above, appear in the application itself (see judgment of 8 July 2020, Scorify v EUIPO – Scor (SCORIFY), T‑328/19, not published, EU:T:2020:311, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). 36 In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, the summary of the applicant’s pleas in law must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the competent Court to rule on the action. Thus, it is not for the General Court to seek and identify, in the annexes, or even in EUIPO’s administrative file, the pleas on which it may consider the action to be based. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in support of a plea in law (judgment of 9 March 2018, Recordati Orphan Drugs v EUIPO – Laboratorios Normon (NORMOSANG), T‑103/17, not published, EU:T:2018:126, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). 37 Nor is it for the General Court to take on the role of the parties by seeking to identify the relevant pleas and arguments in the documents to which those parties refer (judgment of 17 April 2008, Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. v OHIM – Pelikan (Representation of a pelican), T‑389/03, not published, EU:T:2008:114, paragraph 19). 38 It must be pointed out that, in order to call into question the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the evidence in the contested decision, the applicant confines itself in the application, first, to making a general reference to the evidence adduced in the context of the administrative proceedings, without indicating how the specific assessment of that evidence could invalidate the Board of Appeal’s conclusion in paragraph 35 of the contested decision that use of the earlier sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance had not been shown. Second, although the applicant refers in the application to Annex 4 submitted during the opposition proceedings and to Annex III to the statement setting out the grounds of the appeal before the Board of Appeal, it must be stated, as is apparent from paragraphs 30 and 31 above, that those arguments, in so far as they are based on those annexes, must be rejected given that those documents do not give any indication of the applicant’s use of the earlier sign in the course of trade. In addition, it must be held that the applicant does not dispute the limited probative value of the undated photographs submitted in Annex III to the statement setting out the grounds of the appeal before the Board of Appeal, as it states in the application that such documents may be used to corroborate other evidence. 39 Consequently, the applicant’s arguments are not such as to call into question the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that the applicant did not show that it had used the earlier sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance. 40 Therefore, the first complaint of the single plea must be rejected. 41 As regards the second complaint of the single plea, alleging failure to examine the valid grounds for rejecting the mark applied for in the light of Portuguese national law, it must be borne in mind that, (i) according to the case-law cited in paragraph 20 above, the four conditions laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 are cumulative and (ii) the Board of Appeal correctly concluded in the contested decision that the applicant had not shown that it had used the earlier sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal was not required to decide on the question of whether, under Portuguese law, the applicant was entitled to prohibit the use and thus to oppose the registration of the mark applied for (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 April 2022, Dorit-DFT v EUIPO – Erwin Suter (DORIT), T‑208/21, not published, EU:T:2022:228, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited). 42 Therefore, the second complaint of the single plea, according to which the Board of Appeal failed to take into consideration and examine the valid grounds for rejecting the mark applied for based on Portuguese national law conferring on the applicant the right to prohibit the use of that mark, must be rejected as ineffective. 43 In the light of the foregoing, the single plea in law put forward by the applicant must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 44 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 45 In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that, (i) since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs, and (ii) since EUIPO has applied for the applicant to be ordered to pay the costs only in the event that a hearing is convened, in the absence of such a hearing, EUIPO must be ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Confrasilvas – Construções S. A. and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs. Kowalik-Bańczyk Buttigieg Ricziová Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 24 September 2025. V. Di Bucci S. Papasavvas Registrar President * Language of the case: English.