62020TJ0345_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 –Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)
(Case T‑345/20)
(EU trade mark – Application for registration of the EU figurative mark MEN+ – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Examination of the facts – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons)
1.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Mark devoid of distinctive character – Definition
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see para. 14)
2.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, 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 distinctive character – Marks consisting of advertising slogans – Distinctive character – Application of specific criteria for assessment – Not permissible
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see para. 16)
4.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Marks consisting of advertising slogans – Laudatory promotional formula
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see para. 17)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Figurative mark MEN+
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paras 30, 32-34, 45, 50, 56, 58)
6.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute 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 7(1) and 94(1), first sentence)
(see para. 60)
7.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion – Duty of diligence
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7 and 95(1))
(see paras 74, 75)
8.
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see para. 78)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 (Case R 1906/2019-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEN+ as an EU trade mark.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs.