62020TJ0282_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 –Apologistics v EUIPO – Kerckhoff (APO)
(Case T‑282/20)
(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark APO – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
1.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Need to preserve availability
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))
(see para. 19)
2.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – 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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))
(see paras 20, 22)
3.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))
(see para. 21)
4.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark APO
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))
(see paras 25, 26, 33-39, 50)
5.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal – Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1))
(see para. 31)
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
(Council Regulation No 207/2009)
(see para. 42)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 982/2019-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between M. Kerckhoff and Apologistics.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.