62024TO0379_INF
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2025 –MSG Frucht v EUIPO (Götterfrucht)
(Case T‑379/24)
(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark Götterfrucht – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No recourse to oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
1.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – No clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on – Inadmissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))
(see paragraphs 22, 30, 31)
2.
Action for annulment – Subject matter – Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part – Annulment of such a decision – Conditions
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraph 34)
3.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal – Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the public interest underlying each of them
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1))
(see paragraph 35)
4.
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Recourse to the oral procedure – Discretion of the Office
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 96(1))
(see paragraph 40)
Operative part
1.
The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
2.
MSG Frucht GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall each bear their own costs.