62021TJ0233_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2022 –Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)
(Case T‑233/21)
(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (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 – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paras 14, 16-18, 42)
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 – Aim – Need to preserve availability
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see para. 15)
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 – Mark designating a particular therapeutic method
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see para. 36)
4.
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 Clustermedizin
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paras 37-40, 45)
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 No 2017/1001)
(see para. 43)
6.
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
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001)
(see para. 44)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 (Case R 2127/2020-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Clustermedizin as an EU trade mark.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs.