Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2021 –Bachmann v EUIPO (LIGHTYOGA) (Case T‑153/20)
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Not the law itself: Judgment
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/judgment/62020TJ0153_INF@2021-02-10/en
1. EU trade markProcedural provisionsStatement of reasons for decisionsFirst sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), First sentence) (see para. 26)
2. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markRelative grounds for refusalSeparate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registrationObligation to state the reasons for refusing to registerScope (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1) and 94(1)) (see paras 27-29, 71)
3. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or serviceConcept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 41-44)
4. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markApplication for registration of a sign for all the goods or services falling within the same categoryAssessment of the descriptiveness of the sign concerning all the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 45)
5. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goodsWord mark LIGHTYOGA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 48, 58, 60, 68, 70, 72)
6. Community trade markDecisions of the OfficeLegalityExamination by the EU judicatureCriteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 73)
7. EU trade markDecisions of the OfficePrinciple of equal treatmentPrinciple of sound administrationEUIPO’s previous decision-making practicePrinciple of legalityNeed for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 74-76)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2019 (Case R 2346/2019 2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIGHTYOGA as an EU trade mark. Operative part The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Gabriele Bachmann to pay the costs.