Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:347
Date: 2022-06-08
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2022 – Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW) (Case T‑744/21) (1) (EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) 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 – Definition – Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 13, 14, 28, 32) 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 – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15, 31) 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 – Word mark MAXFLOW (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 26, 29, 36, 39) 4. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 40, 41) 5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 43) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Medela Holding AG to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.