This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TJ0215
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021.
Fidia farmaceutici SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark HYAL – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Right to be heard – Audi alteram partem rule – Obligation to state reasons – Sound administration and equal treatment – Article 165(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-215/20.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021.
Fidia farmaceutici SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark HYAL – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Right to be heard – Audi alteram partem rule – Obligation to state reasons – Sound administration and equal treatment – Article 165(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
Case T-215/20.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2021:371
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –
Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO – Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories (HYAL)
(Case T‑215/20)
(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark HYAL – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Right to be heard – Audi alteram partem rule – Obligation to state reasons – Sound administration and equal treatment – Article 165(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
1. |
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – 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 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 36) |
2. |
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Concept (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see para. 37) |
3. |
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – 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 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 38, 53, 54) |
4. |
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 – Relevant date for the examination of an absolute ground for nullity – Date of lodging the application for registration (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 39, 58) |
5. |
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark HYAL (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 63, 69, 71, 76) |
6. |
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Concept (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 66-68) |
7. |
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – 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 83, 84) |
8. |
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion – Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal – Examination restricted to the facts, evidence and arguments provided (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1), 59(1)(a) and 95(1)) (see para. 97) |
9. |
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope 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. 111) |
10. |
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see paras 112-114) |
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 January 2020 (Case R 613/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories and Fidia farmaceutici.
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Fidia farmaceutici SpA to pay the costs. |