Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 —  
Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)

(Case T‑375/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark INSTASITE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

| 1. | EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Observance of the rights of the defence  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence)  (see paras 17-19) |

| 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 29) |

| 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—Concept—Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 30-33, 41) |

| 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—Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign—Criteria  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 34) |

| 5. | 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 INSTASITE  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 35-37, 42-45, 50, 51) |

| 6. | EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Trade mark made up of several elements—Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark—Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))  (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  (see paras 63-66) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Case R 1742/2015-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign INSTASITE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Sabre GLBL, Inc. to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)