Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2023 –  
Trus v EUIPO – Unilab (ARTRESAN)

(Case T‑585/22) (
[1](#t-ECR_62022TJ0585_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark ARTRESAN – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Purpose  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paragraph 17) |

| 2. | 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 – Essential procedural requirement  (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paragraphs 18, 20) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a))  (see paragraphs 25-28) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the adjudicating bodies of EUIPO – Not included  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)  (see paragraphs 33, 35, 62) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against a decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2))  (see paragraphs 38-40) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Word mark ARTRESAN  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a))  (see paragraphs 44, 51, 53, 54, 61, 75, 79) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Proof of use – Simultaneous use of several signs  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a))  (see paragraph 52) |

| 8. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Proof of use – Partial use – Effect – Concept of 'part of the goods or services covered by the registration' – Independent subcategory of goods or services – Definition  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(2))  (see paragraphs 60, 65-68, 71, 72) |

| 9. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))  (see paragraph 78) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Mr Mariusz Trus to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Unilab LP; |

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62022TJ0585_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 418, 31.10.2022](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2022:418:TOC).

[Top](#document1)