Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2018 –

Inforsacom Logicalis v EUIPO (Business and technology working as one)

(Case T‑7/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Business and technology working as one — Trade mark consisting in an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 13)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 31)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark Business and technology working as one (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32, 38)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 34)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 40)

7. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see paras 44, 46)

8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2017 (Case R 808/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Business and technology working as one as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;