62024TJ0461_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2025 –SHS v EUIPO (Pure Steel+)
(Case T‑461/24)
(EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark Pure Steel+ – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Assessment of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion – Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
1.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Concept
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraph 12)
2.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive character of a sign – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraph 13)
3.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Figurative mark Pure Steel+
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraphs 27, 28, 31-33, 76)
4.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate consideration of the pleas in law having regard to every one of the products 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, Art. 7(1))
(see paragraphs 37, 38)
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 paragraphs 48-51)
6.
EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of good administration – The Office’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case
(see paragraphs 52-55)
7.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Composite mark – Taking into account the overall perception of the mark by the relevant public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paragraph 56)
8.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)
(see paragraphs 61, 62)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders SHS – Stahl-Holding-Saar GmbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.