Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2022 –  
Meta Cluster v EUIPO (Clustermedizin)

(Case T‑233/21)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark Clustermedizin – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (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 – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 14, 16-18, 42) |

| 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 – Aim – Need to preserve availability  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 15) |

| 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 – Mark designating a particular therapeutic method  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 36) |

| 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 Clustermedizin  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 37-40, 45) |

| 5. | 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. 43) |

| 6. | 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 para. 44) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2021 (Case R 2127/2020-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Clustermedizin as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Meta Cluster GmbH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)