Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

9 July 2025 ([\*](#Footnote*))

( EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark representing three red and white concentric circles – Absolute ground for invalidity – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 )

In Case T‑347/24,

**Target Brands, Inc.,** established in Minneapolis, Minnesota (United States), represented by V. von Bomhard and A. Malkmes, lawyers,

applicant,

v

**European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),**  represented by T. Klee and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

**Polipol Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG,** established in Diepenau (Germany), represented by N. Friese, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of A. Marcoulli, President, V. Tomljenović (Rapporteur) and W. Valasidis, Judges,

Registrar: G. Mitrev, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 30 April 2025,

gives the following

**Judgment**

1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Target Brands, Inc., seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 April 2024 (Case R 1275/2022-1) (‘the contested decision’).

**Background to the dispute**

2        On 8 October 2020, the intervener, Polipol Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG, filed with EUIPO an application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark which had been registered following an application filed by the applicant on 3 April 2018 in respect of the following figurative sign:

![Image not found](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)

3        The services covered by the contested mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity was sought were in Classes 35 and 42 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding to the description in paragraph 1 of the contested decision.

4        The grounds relied upon in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity were those set out in Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, and Article 59(1)(b) of that regulation.

5        By decision of 20 May 2022, the Cancellation Division dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity.

6        On 18 July 2022, the intervener filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the Cancellation Division’s decision.

7        By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal annulled the Cancellation Division’s decision and declared the contested mark invalid, since that mark was devoid of any inherent distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

8        In essence, the Board of Appeal found that the contested mark was a simple reproduction of two banal and simple geometric shapes and would be perceived as a red circle (a dot) inside the red outline of a circle, on a white background. According to the Board of Appeal, that mark would not be perceived as an indication of commercial origin enabling the services at issue to be distinguished from those of other undertakings, since that mark did not enjoy a minimum degree of singularity and memorability.

**Forms of order sought**

9        The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the contested decision;

–        order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

10      EUIPO contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that an oral hearing is convened.

11      The intervener contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

**Law**

12      The applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging, first, a failure to state reasons and infringement of the right to be heard, based on Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, and, second, infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, in that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the contested mark lacked distinctive character.

***The first plea, alleging infringement of** **Article 94****(1) of Regulation 2017/1001***

13      The present plea can be divided, in essence, into two parts. In the first part, the applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons. In the second part, it submits that that decision was adopted in breach of its right to be heard.

*The first part, alleging a failure to state reasons*

14      The applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons in that the Board of Appeal did not respond to its arguments relating to the earlier registrations on which it relied.

15      EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

16      The first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 provides that decisions of EUIPO are to state the reasons on which they are based. That obligation has the same scope as that which derives from the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU which requires that the statement of reasons must disclose in a clear and unequivocal manner the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question, without it being necessary for that reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets those requirements must, nonetheless, be assessed with regard, not only to its wording, but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 28 June 2018, *EUIPO* v *Puma*, C‑564/16 P, EU:C:2018:509, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).

17      In the present case, the Board of Appeal set out in detail in the contested decision the reasoning which led it to conclude that the contested mark had been registered in breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 in that that mark was devoid of any inherent distinctive character in respect of all the services for which it was registered.

18      In addition, contrary to what the applicant claims, the Board of Appeal responded, in paragraphs 49 to 52 of the contested decision, to the applicant’s arguments relating to the earlier registrations. Thus, it explained, in essence, that the earlier EU trade mark registrations relied on by the applicant, related neither to the sign nor to the services concerned by the contested mark and were therefore not analogous. It also stated, with regard to the applicant’s arguments based on registrations of identical EU trade marks, that EUIPO had no discretion to refuse or accept an application for registration, since the examination of the registrability of a sign must be carried out solely on the basis of Regulation 2017/1001, as interpreted by the EU judicature, and not on the basis of a previous practice of EUIPO. Furthermore, it stated that the earlier national registrations, of which the applicant was the proprietor, were not decisive inasmuch as, in accordance with the case-law, the EU trade mark system is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it; it applies independently of any national system.

19      It follows from the foregoing that the applicant was in a position to understand, on reading the contested decision, the essential legal considerations in the general scheme of that decision, including as regards the earlier registrations relied on by the applicant, and that the Court is in a position to review the legality of that decision.

20      The present part of the plea must therefore be rejected.

*The second part, alleging infringement of the right to be heard*

21      The applicant submits, in essence, that the Board of Appeal infringed its right to be heard in so far as it chose a definition of the contested mark which was not the subject of discussion and which, according to the applicant, had an impact on its assessment of the distinctive character of that mark.

22      EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

23      The second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 provides that decisions of EUIPO are to be based only on reasons or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an opportunity to present their comments.

24      In that regard, it must be stated that the Board of Appeal based its decision on the assessment of the contested mark, as it had been registered. It is common ground that, in the proceedings before EUIPO, the applicant has had an opportunity to present its comments on that mark and its characteristics, both before the Cancellation Division and before that Board of Appeal. More specifically, it is apparent from the file that the applicant submitted that, contrary to what had been claimed by the intervener in the application for a declaration of invalidity, that mark did not consist of a simple geometric shape, composed of two red circles, with an interposed white circle, but consisted rather of a sign composed of concentric circles, in red and white, which would be perceived as a target or bull’s eye device.

25      Moreover, as is apparent from the contested decision, the Board of Appeal examined the arguments submitted by the applicant and all the evidence which it submitted in response to the intervener’s appeal, as summarised in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the contested decision. In any event, the applicant’s claim that its argument relating to the fact that the contested mark would be perceived as a target or a bull’s eye device was not taken into account by that Board of Appeal concerns a possible error of assessment and cannot usefully be relied on to demonstrate that its right to be heard has been infringed.

26      In addition, as regards the assessment of the distinctive character of the contested mark, the fact that the Board of Appeal arrived at a different conclusion from the Cancellation Division has no bearing on the assessment of the present part of the plea. While the right to be heard, as laid down in the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, covers the factual and legal evidence which forms the basis for the decision-making act, it does not, however, apply to the final position which the administration intends to adopt (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 December 2003, *Audi* v *OHIM (TDI)*, T‑16/02, EU:T:2003:327, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).

27      Thus, the Board of Appeal was not obliged to hear the applicant on its final assessment as regards the definition of the contested mark, and the question whether that mark was devoid of any inherent distinctive character, an assessment which it adopted on the basis of the file containing all the arguments and evidence submitted by the applicant and by the intervener before EUIPO.

28      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the present part of the plea must be rejected, as must the first plea in its entirety.

***The second plea, alleging infringement of** **Article 59****(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with** **Article 7****(1)****(b) of that regulation***

29      The applicant submits, in essence, that the contested mark has distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. It complains that the Board of Appeal, first, made an error of assessment as regards the definition of that mark and the relevant public’s perception of it and, second, an error of assessment as regards the lack of distinctive character of that mark, contrary to EUIPO’s previous practice.

*Preliminary observations*

30      In the first place, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, an EU trade mark is to be declared invalid on, inter alia, application to EUIPO, where it has been registered contrary to the provisions of Article 7 of that regulation.

31      An EU trade mark is regarded as valid until it has been declared invalid by EUIPO following invalidity proceedings. The contested mark therefore enjoys a presumption of validity, which is the logical consequence of the review carried out by EUIPO in the examination of an application for registration. In those circumstances, it is for the person who has filed the application for a declaration of invalidity to invoke before EUIPO the specific facts which call the validity of that trade mark into question (see judgments of 21 April 2015, *Louis Vuitton Malletier* v *OHIM – Nanu-Nana (Representation of a brown and beige chequerboard pattern)*, T‑359/12, EU:T:2015:215, paragraphs 60 and 61 and the case-law cited, and of 20 November 2024, *Washtower IP* v *EUIPO – LG Electronics (WASHTOWER)*, T‑376/23, not published, EU:T:2024:849, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

32      In the second place, under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered.

33      For a trade mark to possess distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, it must serve to identify the goods and services in respect of which registration is applied for as originating from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods and services from those of other undertakings (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 January 2010, *Audi* v *OHIM*, C‑398/08 P, EU:C:2010:29, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

34      Moreover, the distinctive character of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, must be assessed, first, by reference to the goods or services in respect of which registration has been applied for and, second, by reference to the perception of them by the relevant public (see judgment of 29 April 2004, *Henkel* v *OHIM*, C‑456/01 P and C‑457/01 P, EU:C:2004:258, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

35      It is in the light of those considerations that it is necessary to examine whether, as the applicant submits in the second plea, the Board of Appeal infringed Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, by finding that the contested mark was devoid of any distinctive character.

*The relevant public*

36      The Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 36 of the contested decision, that the relevant public was, on the one hand, the general public, which would display a level of attention that could vary from low to high, and, on the other, professionals, whose knowledge would be high taking account of the attention paid to the reliability of the services at issue. It did, however, clarify that the level of attention of the relevant public did not have decisive influence on the legal criteria used to assess the distinctive character of the contested mark.

37      In the present case, there is nothing in the file capable of calling into question those assessments, which are not disputed by the applicant.

*The description of the contested mark and its perception by the relevant public*

38      In essence, the applicant complains that the Board of Appeal relied on an incorrect description of the contested mark and erred in finding that the relevant public would perceive the mark as a simple geometric shape representing a bullet point, a radio button or a decorative element, whereas it consists of three concentric circles with the colour combination red-white-red, alluding to a target or to a bull’s eye device.

39      In the first place, it must be noted that it is apparent from paragraph 37 of the contested decision that the Board of Appeal found that the contested mark consisted of a red circle or a red dot inside a red outline of a circle, which is itself placed on a white background.

40      It must be stated that such a description of the contested mark includes the essential elements which emerge from the sign in question. As was noted by the Board of Appeal, in the light of that sign, it is possible to view a red central circle, which could also be described as a dot, placed inside a white background, the whole being placed inside a red outline. Even if those elements may be described using other wording, there are no elements missing in that description and that description cannot be regarded as distorting that sign.

41      From that perspective, the description used by the Board of Appeal is not opposed to that supported by the applicant, since the definitions of ‘red circle’ and ‘red dot’, as used by the Board of Appeal in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, are equivalent, as acknowledged by the applicant at the hearing. The expression ‘red circle inside a red outline of a circle on a white background’, used by that Board of Appeal in that paragraph refers, in essence, to the definition of ‘three concentric circles’, favoured by the applicant. Furthermore, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, it is apparent from that paragraph that the Board of Appeal in question took account of the fact that the contested mark displayed two colours, namely red for the circles and white for the background.

42      In those circumstances, the applicant’s arguments disputing the Board of Appeal’s description of the contested mark must be disregarded.

43      In the second place, as regards the applicant’s arguments that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the contested mark could be perceived as a bullet point, a radio button or a decorative element, on the basis of evidence without any probative value and incorrectly based on allegedly well-known facts, the Court makes the following observations.

44      First, the Board of Appeal found that the intervener’s arguments, which claimed, inter alia, that the contested mark would be perceived as a radio button, a bullet point or a decorative element, on the basis of several items of evidence which had been submitted in its application for a declaration of invalidity and consisted of images and screenshots showing use of symbols similar to that mark, such as radio buttons for selecting goods and services online, bullet points or such as everyday banal decorative elements to indicate, or draw attention to, the elements on which such a representation is placed, were well founded.

45      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, under the case-law, when considering whether the absolute grounds referred to in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 preclude the registration of a mark or must give rise to a declaration that a previously registered mark is invalid, the adjudicating bodies of EUIPO must take the date of filing of the application for registration as the material date (see judgment of 13 May 2020, *SolNova* v *EUIPO – Canina Pharma (BIO-INSECT Shocker)*, T‑86/19, EU:T:2020:199, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

46      That obligation, however, does not preclude the adjudicating bodies of EUIPO from taking into account, where appropriate, evidence subsequent to the application for registration, provided that such evidence allows conclusions to be drawn with regard to the situation as it was on that date (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 March 2014, *Pi-Design and Others* v *Yoshida Metal Industry*, C‑337/12 P to C‑340/12 P, not published, EU:C:2014:129, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).

47      In the present case, it is true that the images and screenshots taken into account by the Board of Appeal were submitted by the intervener in the application for a declaration of invalidity of 8 October 2020, that is to say, 30 months after the filing of the application for registration of the contested mark of 3 April 2018. However, that Board of Appeal also took into account, as a well-known element, the fact that that mark was in fact likely to represent a radio button, a bullet point or a decorative element.

48      Second, in so far as the applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s taking into account, as a well-known element, the fact that the contested mark was in fact likely to represent a radio button, a bullet point or a decorative element, it is true that it is necessary to bear in mind the case-law referred to in paragraph 31 above, according to which, in invalidity proceedings based on an absolute ground for refusal, the registered EU trade mark is presumed to be valid.

49      However, while the presumption of validity of the registration restricts EUIPO’s obligation to examine the relevant facts, it does not preclude it, inter alia, in view of the particulars put forward by the party challenging the validity of the mark at issue, from relying, not only on the arguments and any evidence produced by that party in its application for a declaration of invalidity, but also on well-known facts observed by EUIPO in the context of the invalidity proceedings (see judgment of 23 October 2024, *Jima Projects* v *EUIPO – Salis Sulam (Representation of two parallel stripes on the side of a sports shoe)*, T‑307/23, not published, EU:T:2024:731, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).

50      In the present case, the Board of Appeal stated, in paragraph 39 of the contested decision, that it was well known that elements consisting of a red circle, placed inside a red circle, were used as banal figurative elements, either as radio buttons or as bullet points, in particular, in order to allow the selection of goods or services online. In accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 49 above, the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised for taking well-known facts into account in its analysis.

51      Moreover, as has been stated in paragraph 42 above, the Board of Appeal was entitled to describe the contested mark as consisting of a red circle or a red dot, inside a red outline, which is itself placed on a white background.

52      In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal cannot be criticised for finding that that representation was likely to be perceived, in essence, as being a radio button, intended to highlight a chosen option, particularly, goods or services offered online, a bullet point or a decorative element.

53      Third, and in any event, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, well-known facts are defined as facts which are likely to be known by anyone or which may be learnt from generally accessible sources (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 June 2022, *Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González* v *EUIPO – Ireland and Ornua (La Irlandesa 1943)*, T‑306/20, EU:T:2022:404, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). When EUIPO bodies decide to take well-known facts into account, they are not obliged to establish, in their decisions, the accuracy of such facts. However, an applicant is entitled to submit before the Court documents in order either to substantiate or to challenge before it the accuracy of a matter of common knowledge (see judgment of 26 June 2024, *Peikko Group* v *EUIPO – Anstar (Shape of metal beams for construction)*, T‑192/23, not published, EU:T:2024:420, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited).

54      Although the applicant submits that it is unusual, first, for bullet points to consist of three concentric circles of the same width or radius and, second, for consumers to encounter a bullet point or a radio button in isolation, it has not produced any evidence before the Court to substantiate its argument. For that reason, the applicant’s arguments calling into question the Board of Appeal’s finding that it is well known that signs similar to the contested mark are used as radio buttons, bullet points or decorative elements must be disregarded.

55      In those circumstances, the applicant’s arguments disputing the finding that the contested mark could represent a radio button, a bullet point or a decorative element must be disregarded.

56      In the third place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Board of Appeal did not take into consideration that the contested mark represents a target or a bull’s eye device, it should be borne in mind that the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, that that mark consisted of a red circle placed inside a red outline of a circle, itself placed on a white background, and was likely to be perceived as such, without the Board of Appeal finding it necessary to conclude that that graphic representation was tantamount to a target or a bull’s eye device.

57      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the case-law, in order for a sign to come within the scope of the prohibition set out in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, it is sufficient that a ground for refusal exists in relation to a non-negligible part of the relevant public, and it is not necessary, in that regard, to examine whether other consumers belonging to that public are also aware of that sign. Consequently, in so far as the Board of Appeal was entitled to conclude that the contested mark consisted of a red circle or a red dot inside a red outline, itself placed on a white background, the fact that, as is submitted by the applicant, a part of that public may be able to identify that mark as representing a target or bull’s eye device, even if it were established, is irrelevant.

58      It follows from the foregoing that the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment as regards its description of the contested mark and the perception of the mark by the relevant public.

*The distinctive character of the contested mark*

59      The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the distinctive character of the contested mark.

60      In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law that a sign which is excessively simple and is constituted by a basic geometrical figure, such as a circle, a line, a rectangle or a conventional pentagon, is not, in itself, capable of conveying a message which consumers will be able to remember, with the result that they will not regard it as a trade mark unless it has acquired distinctive character through use (see judgments of 29 September 2009, *The Smiley Company* v *OHIM (Representation of half a smiley smile)*, T‑139/08, EU:T:2009:364, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited, and of 19 June 2024, *Coinbase* v *EUIPO (Representation of a broken circle)*, T‑304/23, not published, EU:T:2024:401, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

61      A representation of such a basic geometrical figure can therefore fulfil an identifying function only if it includes elements capable of differentiating it from other representations of that figure and attracting the consumer’s attention (see judgment of 28 June 2017, *X-cen-tek* v *EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)*, T‑470/16, not published, EU:T:2017:442, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

62      That being so, a finding that a mark has distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 is not subject to a finding of a specific level of linguistic or artistic creativity or imaginativeness on the part of the proprietor of the trade mark. It suffices that the trade mark should enable the relevant public to identify the origin of the goods or services it covers and to distinguish them from those of other undertakings (see judgment of 29 September 2009, *Representation of half a smiley smile*, T‑139/08, EU:T:2009:364, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

63      In addition, a sign consisting of a combination of elements each of which is devoid of any distinctive character, such as basic geometrical figures, can be distinctive only if concrete evidence, such as, for example, the way in which the various elements are combined, indicates that that sign is greater than the mere sum of its constituent parts (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 June 2017, *Representation of a triangle*, T‑470/16, not published, EU:T:2017:442, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).

64      It is in the light of those considerations that it is necessary to examine whether the Board of Appeal correctly concluded that the contested mark lacked distinctive character.

65      First, as has been stated in paragraph 58 above, the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment in its description of the contested mark as consisting of a red circle or a red dot, inside a red outline of a circle, which is itself placed on a white background, even though, as the applicant stated, that mark may also be described as consisting of three concentric circles, displaying the colour combination red-white-red.

66      Second, irrespective of the description used, it must be stated that the contested mark, composed of three concentric circles, consists of a set of basic geometric figures, represented one-dimensionally without shadow and without being embossed. Consequently, that mark does not have any other element which is visually eye-catching or likely to be remembered by the relevant public.

67      Moreover, as the Board of Appeal correctly pointed out, in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the contested decision, the image of concentric circles, as represented by the contested mark, is not unusual, in particular, in a digital context in order to highlight the option selected by the user. It is also commonly used in everyday life as a decorative element to note, or draw attention to, the element indicated by the representation in question. Consequently, that Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment when it concluded that that mark was likely to convey a functional image of which the relevant public will not retain a recollection and that it cannot be perceived by that public as informing it as to the commercial origin of the services which it covers, particularly since they are, in essence, online retail services and services related to online sales platforms.

68      Third, as regards the red colour of the concentric circles, represented on a white background, it must be observed that the red and white colour combination of the contested mark itself constitutes a basic colour combination, commonly and widely used in everyday life.

69      Thus, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 60 and 61 above, the Board of Appeal did not make an error of assessment when it found, in paragraph 37 of the contested decision, that the contested mark was excessively simple and did not have any aspect easily and instantly memorable by the relevant public which would enable it to be perceived immediately as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services at issue. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal was fully entitled to find that that mark was devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

70      That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s arguments.

71      In respect of the arguments by which the applicant criticises the Board of Appeal for failing to assess the distinctive character of the contested mark with regard to the services at issue, it should be noted that, after considering, in paragraph 35 of the contested decision, the services in respect of which that mark was registered and following the examination, in paragraphs 38 to 39, 42 and 46 of the contested decision, of the elements constituting that mark in relation to the services at issue, that Board of Appeal concluded, in paragraph 48 of the contested decision, that the mark in question was devoid of distinctive character in respect of all the services at issue. Furthermore, as is established in paragraph 67 above, that Board of Appeal was right to find that such a mark would not attract the attention of the relevant public in a digital context.

72      As regards the arguments by which the applicant criticises the Board of Appeal for relying on examples submitted by the intervener which do not show that three concentric circles are used in the context of offering the services at issue and for not taking account of the actual use of the contested mark in connection with the services at issue, it must be borne in mind that EUIPO must, in its examination of the distinctive character of a sign, refer to the reproduction of the mark as attached to the registration application (judgment of 9 November 2016, *Birkenstock Sales* v *EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines)*, T‑579/14, EU:T:2016:650, paragraph 38) and that, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 34 above, that examination must be assessed, first, by reference to the goods or services in respect of which registration has been applied for and, second, by reference to the perception of them by the relevant public. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal cannot be required to examine actual use of the contested mark on the market.

73      Lastly, as regards the arguments by which the applicant criticises the Board of Appeal for wrongly departing from its previous practice, it must be borne in mind that the legality of decisions concerning registration of a sign as an EU trade mark which the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO are called on to take under Regulation 2017/1001, which are adopted in the exercise of circumscribed powers and are not a matter of discretion, must be assessed solely on the basis of that regulation, as interpreted by the EU judicature, and not on the basis of EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (judgments of 15 September 2005, *BioID* v *OHIM*, C‑37/03 P, EU:C:2005:547, paragraph 47; of 12 January 2006, *Deutsche SiSi-Werke* v *OHIM*, C‑173/04 P, EU:C:2006:20, paragraph 48; and of 26 April 2007, *Alcon* v *OHIM*, C‑412/05 P, EU:C:2007:252, paragraph 65).

74      In the light of the foregoing, the second plea must be rejected, and the present action must be dismissed in its entirety.

**Costs**

75      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

76      Since the applicant has been unsuccessful and a hearing was convened, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by EUIPO, which requested that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs in the event that an oral hearing is convened, and with that sought by the intervener.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1.      **Dismisses the action;**

2.      **Orders Target Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.**

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Marcoulli | Tomljenović | Valasidis |

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 July 2025.

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| V. Di Bucci |  | S. Papasavvas |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registrar |  | President |

---

[\*](#Footref*)      Language of the case: English.

[Top](#document1)