Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 – Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)

(Case T-767/16)

(European Union trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark metals — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

| 1. | 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  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 20) |

| 2. | 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–Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign–Criteria  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 21-24) |

| 3. | Judicial proceedings–Application initiating proceedings–Formal requirements–Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based–General reference to other documents not annexed to the application–Inadmissibility  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))  (see paras 31, 32, 56) |

| 4. | EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks devoid of any distinctive character–Assessment of distinctive character  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 40) |

| 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–Figurative mark metals  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 34-46) |

| 6. | EU trade mark–Decisions of the Office–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 paras 48-52) |

| 7. | 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–Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies–Not included  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2))  (see para. 53) |

| 8. | EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Assessment of the registrability of a sign–EU rules only taken into account–Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries–Decisions not binding EU bodies  (Council Regulation No 207/2009)  (see para. 57) |

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 (Case R 2361/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of figurative sign metals as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Nanogate AG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)