Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:220
Date: 2016-04-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Provisional text Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2016 — Spirig Pharma v EUIPO (Daylong) (Case T‑261/15) EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative trade mark Daylong — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 1. 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. 17) 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 — Concept/Meaning/Definition — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18-21) 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22, 46, 59, 60) 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 — Figurative mark Daylong (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23-25, 33, 41, 42, 61, 62) 5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Lack of distinctive character in relation only to certain products falling within that category not precluding recognition of lack of distinctiveness of the sign in relation to products in that category as a whole (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 47) 6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 52-54) 7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions by national authorities not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 63) 8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (see para. 64) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2015 (Case R 2455/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Daylong as an EU trade mark. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Spirig Pharma AG to pay the costs.