Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 May 2021 –  
Müller v EUIPO (TIER SHOP)

(Case T‑535/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark TIER SHOP – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Interest in bringing proceedings – Obligation to state reasons – Article 72(4) and the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Persons whose claims are not upheld by a decision – Decision in part upholding and in part rejecting the application for registration of a mark due to the descriptive and non-distinctive character of the goods and services covered – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(4))  (see paras 19-21) |

| 2. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law and arguments not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see paras 28, 29) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU  (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see para. 36) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate consideration of the pleas in law having regard to every one of the products or services covered by the application for registration – Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register – Scope  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94(1), first sentence)  (see paras 37-42) |

| 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 – Concept  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 61-63) |

| 6. | 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 – Figurative mark TIER SHOP  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 65, 66, 68, 70, 83) |

| 7. | 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 paras 79-82) |

| 8. | 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 2017/1001  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 88-90) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 (Case R 2600/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign TIER SHOP as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Müller GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |

[Top](#document1)