Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 –  
Apologistics v EUIPO – Kerckhoff (APO)

(Case T‑282/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark APO – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

| 1. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – 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, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))  (see para. 19) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – 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, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))  (see paras 20, 22) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))  (see para. 21) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark APO  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a))  (see paras 25, 26, 33-39, 50) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal – Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1))  (see para. 31) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see para. 42) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 982/2019-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between M. Kerckhoff and Apologistics.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)