62023TJ0243_INF
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2024 –Quality First v EUIPO (MORE-BIOTIC)
(Case T‑243/23) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark MORE-BIOTIC – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Equal treatment)
1.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Concept of distinctiveness
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 18, 19)
2.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 20, 21, 31)
3.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Marks consisting of advertising slogans – Laudatory promotional formula
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paragraph 22)
4.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Word mark MORE-BIOTIC
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 24, 34, 41)
5.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Trade mark made up of several elements – Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark – Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))
(see paragraph 26)
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 paragraphs 37, 38)
7.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Decisions of national authorities not binding on EU bodies
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 49)
8.
EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of good administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)
(see paragraph 51)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Quality First GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) each to bear their own costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 223, 26.6.2023.