Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:44
Date: 2017-01-31
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Italy

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of two red oblique curves) (Case T‑130/16) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing two red oblique curves — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to assess the distinctiveness of a mark by reference to the perception which the relevant public has of it) 1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Recognition of the distinctiveness of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 11-14) 2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Sign composed of a basic geometric figure (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 15) 3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria — Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two red oblique curves. Operative part The Court: 1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2); 2. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.