Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:379
Date: 2015-06-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Those elements must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, where necessary, without further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars on which it is based be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. Whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the abovementioned provisions, must appear in the application (see order of 8 July 2010 in Strålfors v OHIM (ID SOLUTIONS), T‑211/10, EU:T:2010:301, paragraphs 5 and 6 and the case-law cited). 18 Consequently, to the extent that, by its action, the applicant is relying on the arguments put forward during the invalidity proceedings before OHIM and the documents produced in support of those arguments, making a general reference, without going into further detail, to annexes to the application which contain those arguments and documents, the action is inadmissible. 19 However, to the extent that, by its action, the applicant is repeating in its application the arguments submitted during the proceedings before OHIM, it must be held that the action cannot be declared inadmissible for that fact alone. The fact of repeating, wholly or in part, the arguments already invoked before OHIM and not simply referring to them does not amount to an infringement of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice or Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. Provided an applicant contests the interpretation or application of EU law made by OHIM, the points of law examined by OHIM can be debated again in an action before the Court. This forms part of the review by the courts to which the decisions of OHIM are amenable under Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (judgment of 27 September 2005 in Cargo Partner v OHIM (CARGO PARTNER), T‑123/04, ECR, EU:T:2005:340, paragraph 29). 20 In the second place, regarding the complaint relating to the absolute ground for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009, the applicant merely asserts that the contested trade mark consists of a shape determined by the nature of the goods themselves. It does not put forward any argument in the application to support that assertion; nor does it provide any reasoning to show that the Board of Appeal’s findings in that regard were incorrect. Therefore, to the extent that it concerns that ground for refusal, the application does not satisfy the minimum requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the complaint relating to the absolute ground for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 must, as OHIM and the intervener essentially contend, be rejected as inadmissible. 21 In the third place, regarding the complaint relating to the absolute ground for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009, the applicant claims that the contested trade mark consists exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result. 22 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, by restricting the ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 to signs which consist ‘exclusively’ of the shape of goods which is ‘necessary’ to obtain a technical result, the legislature duly took into account that any shape of goods is, to a certain extent, functional and that it would therefore be inappropriate to refuse to register a shape of goods as a trade mark solely on the ground that it has functional characteristics. By the terms ‘exclusively’ and ‘necessary’, that provision ensures that solely shapes of goods which only incorporate a technical solution, and whose registration as a trade mark would therefore actually impede the use of that technical solution by other undertakings, are not to be registered (judgment of 14 September 2010 in Lego Juris v OHIM, C‑48/09 P, ECR, EU:C:2010:516, paragraph 48). 23 In the present case, the Board of Appeal observed that, in order for Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 to apply, the mark in question had to consist exclusively of the shape of goods which was necessary to obtain a technical result, but that none of the conditions for applying that provision was met, as the applicant had, inter alia, neglected to mention what technical result a toy figure might be supposed to achieve. In particular, the Board emphasised that the toy figure represented by the contested trade mark was not modular, in so far as it could not be combined with as many other identical figures as desired, with the result that modularity was not a possible technical result. In addition, it observed that the fact that the figure in question ‘represents a manikin’ and may be used by a child in a play context was not a technical result. The Board of Appeal also noted that the mere fact that some parts of an object are moveable was not a technical result, so long as the movement itself did not enable a result to be achieved. It concluded that the applicant had not succeeded in highlighting any technical result which the object of the contested trade mark could achieve beyond that of simply being a figure. As regards the fact that, thanks to various coupling elements, such as the holes under its feet, the toy figure in question can be joined to Lego toy bricks, the Board of Appeal held that this was not a technical result, as the fact that objects may be joined to other objects is not a technical result of those objects or their shape. In addition, it stated that those coupling elements were not among the essential characteristics of the contested trade mark, as the overall impression given by that mark, which is determined by its configuration ‘in the shape of a manikin’ and has no function per se, is maintained even if the holes under its feet are disregarded. 24 It must be found that the applicant adduces no evidence in its application which would allow the Board of Appeal’s findings in the contested decision to be specifically called into question. 25 In particular, the applicant claims, in essence, that it submitted detailed arguments during the invalidity proceedings before OHIM regarding the technical result of both the figure as a whole and the individual components of which it is formed. It thus states that, in the context of those invalidity proceedings, it argued in detail and showed, through the annexes produced, that all the characteristics of the figure’s shape were necessary to obtain a particular technical result, namely, that figure being combined with other building blocks. However, apart from those general assertions, it does not put forward any argument in its application specifically contesting the detailed assessments on the basis of which the Board of Appeal concluded, in essence, that, apart from the fact that the shape of the contested trade mark was a figure, the applicant had not shown that any technical result could be attributed to that shape. In particular, it does not put forward any evidence in its application to contest the finding that, in essence, the fact that the figure in question can be joined — thanks to the holes under its feet — to Lego toy bricks is neither a technical result nor an essential characteristic of the contested trade mark. The evidence provided in the application does not therefore permit a finding that the applicant is contesting the interpretation or application of EU law made by OHIM for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 19 above. Accordingly, that complaint must, as OHIM and the intervener essentially contend, be rejected as inadmissible. 26 It must, in any event, be rejected as unfounded. 27 There is nothing to permit a finding that the contested trade mark consists ‘exclusively’ of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result for the purposes of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009. 28 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, as regards the fact that that ground for refusal covers any sign consisting ‘exclusively’ of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, that condition is fulfilled when all the essential characteristics of a shape perform a technical function, the presence of non-essential characteristics with no technical function being irrelevant in that context (see, to that effect, the judgment in Lego Juris v OHIM, cited in paragraph 22 above, EU:C:2010:516, paragraph 51). 29 It is therefore necessary, as a preliminary point, to determine the essential characteristics of the contested trade mark, which, according to case-law (see, to that effect, the judgment in Lego Juris v OHIM, cited in paragraph 22 above, EU:C:2010:516, paragraph 69), correspond to the most important elements of that mark. 30 In the present case, having regard to the graphical representation of the contested trade mark and the fact that it is in the shape of a figure having a human appearance, it must be held that the head, body, arms and legs which are necessary in order for the figure to have that appearance constitute the essential characteristics of the contested trade mark. 31 It must also be held that none of the evidence permits a finding that those particular elements of the shape in question serve any technical function as required by case-law for the application of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009. Indeed, it appears that no technical result is connected to or entailed by the shape of those elements, which do not, in any event (contrary to what the applicant is essentially asserting), allow the figure to be joined to interlocking building blocks. 32 It should be noted that the graphical representation of the hands of the figure in question, the protrusion on its head and the holes under its feet and inside the backs of its legs do not, per se and a priori, enable it to be known whether those elements have any technical function and, if so, what that function is. In any event, assuming that, as the applicant submits, the shape of those elements may have a technical function, that of enabling them to be joined to other elements, in particular interlocking building blocks, those elements cannot be held, either in view of the overall impression conveyed by the contested trade mark or as a result of the analysis of its constituent elements, to be the most important elements of that mark. They do not constitute an essential characteristic of the shape in question for the purposes of case-law. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that the essential functional characteristics of the shapes of those elements are attributable to the claimed technical result. 33 In those circumstances, the applicant’s argument that, in essence, every detail of the shape of the figure in question performs an exclusively technical function, that of enabling the figure to be joined to other components, must be rejected. 34 It must also be found that, contrary to what the applicant is implying, none of the evidence permits a finding that the shape of the figure in question is, as a whole, necessary to obtain a particular technical result. In particular, there is nothing to permit a finding that that shape is, as such and as a whole, necessary to enable the figure to be joined to interlocking building blocks. As the Board of Appeal essentially noted, the ‘result’ of that shape is simply to confer human traits on the figure in question, and the fact that the figure represents a character and may be used by a child in an appropriate play context is not a ‘technical result’. 35 The applicant’s argument that all the characteristics of the shape of the figure in question are necessary to obtain a particular technical result must therefore be rejected. It is also necessary to reject the line of argument asserting that none of the characteristics of the shape in question is the result of a creative design, since it is not substantiated and is, in any event, irrelevant in the context of applying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009, which does not depend on whether the shape is the result of such a design. 36 Regarding the assertion that, in essence, the General Court held, in the context of the action giving rise to the judgment of 12 November 2008 in Lego Juris v OHIM — Mega Brands (Red Lego brick) (T‑270/06, ECR, EU:T:2008:483) concerning invalidity procedure No 63 regarding a red Lego brick, that a shape of that kind could not be registered, it must be noted that, in the present case, the Board of Appeal exhaustively analysed both the mark at issue in those proceedings and the findings of the Cancellation Division, the General Court and the Court of Justice in that context. It concluded that the contested trade mark had nothing in common with the mark at issue in those proceedings except for the fact that it was a toy produced by the same company. The applicant adduces no evidence to call in question the Board of Appeal’s findings in connection with those proceedings, which must, moreover, be upheld. 37 Concerning the assertion that the intervener itself noted the technical qualities of the figure in question in a published report, it must be observed that the applicant does not even indicate in the application what report it is referring to; nor does it produce that report as an annex to that application. In any event, the fact that the figure has technical qualities has no influence in the context of applying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009, which concerns the specific situation of marks consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result. 38 It follows from the foregoing that the single plea in law must be rejected, and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without it being necessary to give a ruling on the admissibility of the head of claim asking the Court to declare the contested trade mark invalid. Costs 39 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by OHIM and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd to pay the costs. Papasavvas Forwood Bieliūnas Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 June 2015. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.