62024TJ0032_EXT
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
24 September 2025 (
*1
)
(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing eight inverted black chevrons – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use of the mark – Form differing in elements that do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Cross-claim – Subject matter of the action – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility)
In Case T‑32/24,
Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC, established in Miami, Florida (United States), represented by M. Hawkins, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by R. Raponi, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being
Hummel Holding A/S, established in Aarhus (Denmark), represented by S. Pedersen, lawyer,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),
composed, at the time of the deliberations, of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and L. Spangsberg Grønfeldt, Judges,
Registrar: G. Mitrev, Administrator,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
further to the hearing on 9 January 2025,
gives the following
Judgment (
1
)
1
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC, seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 November 2023 (Joined Cases R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2) (‘the contested decision’).
I. Background to the dispute
…
8
On 1 August 2022, the intervener filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Cancellation Division, registered under number R 1415/2022‑2, in so far as it revoked the contested international registration in relation to ‘bags for sports’ in Class 18 and ‘footwear; sports footwear; leisure footwear’ in Class 25.
9
On the same day, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Cancellation Division, registered under number R 1421/2022‑2, in so far as it rejected the application for revocation in respect of the goods at issue.
10
By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal joined the appeals in Cases R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2 pursuant to Article 35(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation 2017/1001, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ 2018 L 104, p. 1), on the ground that they were filed against the same decision of the Cancellation Division. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division and, therefore, dismissed the appeals in Cases R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2 and ordered the applicant and the intervener each to bear their own costs.
…
II. Forms of order sought
12
The applicant claims, in essence, that the Court should:
–
annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed its appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 1 June 2022;
–
dismiss the cross-claim;
–
order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs;
–
order the intervener to pay the costs relating to the cross-claim.
13
EUIPO contends that the Court should:
–
dismiss the action and cross-claim in their entirety;
–
order the applicant to bear the costs of the action and the intervener to bear the costs of the cross-claim in the event that an oral hearing is convened.
14
The intervener contends, in essence, that the Court should:
–
dismiss the main action in its entirety;
–
annul the contested decision in so far as it dismissed its appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 1 June 2022;
–
order the applicant to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.
III. Law
…
B.
The cross-claim
1. Admissibility of the cross-claim
101
By separate document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 3 June 2024, the applicant lodged a plea of inadmissibility against the cross-claim under Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In that regard, first, it argues that it follows from Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure that a cross-claim before the General Court is admissible only if it is directed against the same decision as that contested in the main action. In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal ruled on two separate appeals registered under numbers R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2, which had been joined for administrative purposes. Thus, since the main action brought before the Court seeks the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the action registered under number R 1421/2022‑2, the intervener is entitled to bring a cross-claim only against the decision ruling on that action. Secondly, the applicant submits that, since the contested decision in Case R 1421/2022‑2 found in favour of the intervener, the intervener has, in any event, no interest in bringing proceedings against that decision.
102
The intervener contends that the objection of inadmissibility should be rejected. When questioned at the hearing, EUIPO deferred to the Court’s discretion.
103
In the first place, under Article 184(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the cross-claim is to seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application.
104
First, it should be borne in mind that, in the present case, the applicant and the intervener had brought two separate appeals against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 1 June 2022, bearing the references R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2.
105
In accordance with Article 67 of Regulation 2017/1001, the applicant and the intervener were automatically parties to the two parallel proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
106
Pursuant to Article 35(5) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, the Board of Appeal examined the appeals in Cases R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2 in the course of the same proceedings, at the end of which it adopted the contested decision.
107
In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal therefore ruled on the appeals in Cases R 1415/2022‑2 and R 1421/2022‑2 directed against the same decision of the Cancellation Division and involving the same parties.
108
Secondly, by the main action, the applicant asks the Court to annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Case R 1421/2022‑2. The cross-claim, for its part, seeks the annulment of the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal decided therein to dismiss the action in Case R 1415/2022‑2.
109
It follows that the cross-claim seeks the annulment of the contested decision on a point not raised in the application within the meaning of Article 184(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
110
Thus, the applicant incorrectly claims that the cross-claim relates, in essence, to a decision separate from that contested in the main action, in breach of the abovementioned article.
111
In the second place, according to the Court’s settled case-law, an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is admissible only in so far as that person has an interest in having the contested act annulled. Such an interest requires that the annulment of that act must be capable, in itself, of having legal consequences and that the action may therefore, through its outcome, procure an advantage to the party which brought it (see judgment of 18 October 2018, Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council, C‑100/17 P, EU:C:2018:842, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
112
In the present case, the cross-claim seeks the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it dismissed the intervener’s appeal in Case R 1415/2022‑2 and, therefore, upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division that had revoked the rights of the proprietor of the contested international registration, in particular for ‘bags for sports’ in Class 18 and for ‘footwear; sports footwear; leisure footwear’ in Class 25 (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above).
113
If the Court were to uphold the intervener’s claims and annul the contested decision, the Board of Appeal would therefore be required to rule again on the intervener’s action brought in Case R 1415/2022‑2 and could, in that context, adopt a decision different from that annulled by the Court. The cross-claim is therefore liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the intervener.
114
Thus, contrary to what the applicant claims, the fact that the contested decision found in favour of the intervener as regards Case R 1421/2022‑2 cannot deprive it of an interest in bringing proceedings against the contested decision in so far as that decision dismissed the action in Case R 1415/2022‑2.
115
In the light of the foregoing, the plea of inadmissibility is unfounded and must be rejected.
…
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
hereby:
1.
Dismisses the main action and the cross-claim;
2.
Orders Barry’s Bootcamp Holdings LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the main action;
3.
Orders Hummel Holding A/S to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO in the cross-claim.
Marcoulli
Schwarcz
Spangsberg Grønfeldt
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 24 September 2025.
[Signatures]
(
*1
)	Language of the case: English.
(
1
)	Only the paragraphs of the present judgment which the Court considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.