Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 May 2024 –  
Dermavita Company v EUIPO – Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-181/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0181_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark JUVÉDERM – Absolute ground for invalidity – No bad faith – Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Concept of bad faith – Scope  (Council Regulation No 40/2009, Art. 51(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 19-21) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Origin and use of the contested sign – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events leading up to the filing of the trade mark application  (Council Regulation No 40/2009, Art. 51(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 22-24, 39, 58) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Burden of proof  (Council Regulation No 40/2009, Art. 51(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 25, 43) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Word mark JUVÉDERM  (Council Regulation No 40/2009, Art. 51(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 30, 35, 37, 40, 44, 45) |

| 5. | 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 – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions  (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see paragraphs 49-51) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of good administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)  (see paragraph 57) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal 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 paragraph 64) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs. |

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0181_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 179, 22.5.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:179:TOC).

[Top](#document1)