62021TJ0705_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2022 –Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk)
(Case T‑705/21) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark STAHLWERK – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
1.
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)
(see paragraph 11)
2.
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 – Aim – Need to preserve availability
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraph 18)
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 – Definition
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraph 19)
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 – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraph 20)
5.
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 STAHLWERK
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))
(see paragraphs 21-24, 26, 27)
6.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – 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 paragraphs 30-33)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.