Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2021 –  
Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v EUIPO (MASTIHACARE)

(Case T‑60/20)

(EU trade mark – International Registration designating the European Union – Word mark MASTIHACARE – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

| 1. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Concept  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))  (see paras 19, 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 – Aim – Need to preserve availability  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see para. 22) |

| 3. | 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 – Concept  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))  (see paras 23-26) |

| 4. | 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 27, 30) |

| 5. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use – Trade mark devoid of distinctive character throughout the EU – Acquisition of that character in part of the Union – Insufficient  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(2))  (see paras 28, 35) |

| 6. | 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 – Word mark MASTIHACARE  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3))  (see paras 40-44, 46, 52) |

| 7. | EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Exception – Distinctive character acquired through use  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3))  (see para. 44) |

| 8. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas expressed in terms of their substance – Admissibility – Condition  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b) and (c) and 3)  (see para. 50) |

| 9. | Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Account taken of the context and all the legal rules  (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1))  (see para. 60) |

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2019 (Case R 692/2019-1), relating to the international registration of the word mark MASTIHACARE designating the European Union.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)