Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2021 –  
Novomatic v EUIPO – adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)

(Case T‑588/19)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark Power Stars – Partial revocation declaration – Partial lack of genuine use – Proof of genuine use – Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) – Right to be heard – Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001))

| 1. | EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))  (see para. 19) |

| 2. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Probative value of the evidence – Criteria for assessment  (Commission Regulations No 2868/95, Rules 22(3) and (4) and 40(5), and 2018/625, Arts 10(3) and 19(1))  (see para. 26) |

| 3. | EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Figurative mark Power Stars  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a) and (2))  (see paras 37, 40, 45, 48, 63, 65, 80, 91, 108) |

| 4. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2) and (3))  (see paras 52, 53, 72) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect – Concept of ‘part of the goods or services’ covered by the registration  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2) and (3))  (see para. 64) |

| 6. | EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Concept – Determination of a minimal quantitative use threshold – Precluded  (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47(2))  (see para. 73) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions  (Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)  (see para. 94) |

| 8. | Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Plea alleging absence or inadequacy of the statement of reasons – Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons – Distinction  (Art. 296 TFEU)  (see para. 97) |

| 9. | EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Observance of the rights of the defence – Scope of the principle  (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), second sentence)  (see paras 102-104) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 2038/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Novomatic.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

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

[Top](#document1)