62021TJ0553_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2022 –Agrarfrost v EUIPO – McCain (Shape of a smiley)
(Case T‑553/21) (
1
)
(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a smiley – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Nature of use – No alteration of distinctive character)
1.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1)(b), 18(1) and 58(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 27, 28, 38, 39, 41)
2.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Use of the mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and scope of the legislation on the use of the EU trade mark
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 50, 51)
3.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Use of the mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the bi-dimensional shape of a smiling face
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a))
(see paragraphs 53, 54, 58, 60, 61, 75)
4.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Use of the mark in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark – Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a); Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 10(3))
(see paragraphs 57, 59, 74)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Agrarfrost GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.