Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2024 –  
Dendiki v EUIPO – D Market (hepsiburada)

(Case T‑172/23) (
[1](#t-ECR_62023TJ0172_INF_EN_01-E0001)
)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark hepsiburada – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72)  (see paragraphs 15, 19) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Scope – Obligation to prove matters within common knowledge –None – Dispute before the General Court  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95(1))  (see paragraph 16) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Concept of bad faith – Scope  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))  (see paragraph 24) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting 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 – Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue – 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 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 25, 26, 38, 49, 50, 55, 58) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Burden of proof  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 27, 28, 61) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting 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 – Restriction to the EU market – Precluded  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))  (see paragraph 35) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant acting in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Word mark hepsiburada  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))  (see paragraphs 37, 40, 42, 48, 54, 60, 62) |

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Dendiki BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by D-Market Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; |

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

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62023TJ0172_INF_EN_01-E0001)
) [OJ C 179, 22.5.2023](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:C:2023:179:TOC).

[Top](#document1)