62018TJ0690_RES
Case T‑690/18
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 19 December 2019
(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata)
Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement a measure — Scope — Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account — Retroactive effect of annulment
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6))
(see paragraphs 45, 54)
EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)
(see paragraph 47)
Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Error of assessment — Distinction
(Arts 263 and 296 TFEU)
(see paragraph 48)
Judicial proceedings — Res judicata — Scope
(see paragraph 52)
Résumé
In the judgment in Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (T‑690/18), delivered on 19 December 2019, the Court ruled on the scope of res judicata in relation to its judgment in Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (‘the judgment in Case T‑35/16’). (
1
) By the present judgment, the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), relating to proceedings for the revocation (
2
) of the EU mark Vita, taken following the annulment by the Court, in the judgment in Case T‑35/16, of an earlier decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal (‘the earlier decision’).
By the judgment in Case T‑35/16, the Court had annulled the earlier decision on the basis of an inadequate statement of reasons, raised ex officio, but had also noted that certain aspects of the earlier decision were well reasoned. In relation to those aspects, the Fourth Board of Appeal took the view that it was bound by the findings of the Fifth Board of Appeal, given that the Court had upheld them.
In the present case, the Court upheld the applicant’s plea claiming that the Fourth Board of Appeal had not fulfilled its obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case T‑35/16. (
3
) First, the Court found that it was clear from the judgment in Case T‑35/16 that it had not ruled on the substantive legality of the earlier decision and that the force of res judicata therefore related only to the statement of reasons contained in the earlier decision, as an essential procedural requirement, and not to its substantive legality. Secondly, the Court held that the force of res judicata extends only to the grounds of a judgment which constitute the necessary support of its operative part and are, therefore, inseparable from it. Consequently, the aspects of the earlier decision which the Court had observed were well reasoned could not be considered as having acquired the force of res judicata.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court held that the Fourth Board of Appeal was not bound by the findings of the Fifth Board of Appeal and was therefore required to hand down a fresh decision on all the issues relevant to the revocation of the contested mark.
(
1
)	Judgment of 12 December 2017, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (T‑35/16, not published, EU:T:2017:886).
(
2
)	Under Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
(
3
)	Plea alleging infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009.