62020TJ0153_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021 –Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA)
(Case T‑153/20)
(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark LIGHTYOGA – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU
(Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), First sentence)
(see para. 26)
2.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration – Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register – Scope
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1) and 94(1))
(see paras 27-29, 71)
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 – Concept
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paras 41-44)
4.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Application for registration of a sign for all the goods or services falling within the same category – Assessment of the descriptiveness of the sign concerning all the goods or services
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see para. 45)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods – Word mark LIGHTYOGA
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paras 48, 58, 60, 68, 70, 72)
6.
Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see para. 73)
7.
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case
(see para. 74-76)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 (Case R 2346/2019 2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTYOGA as an EU trade mark.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs.