Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-123/18)

Judgment of 14 Feb 2019

law://eu/cjeu/2018/t-123-18/para_34@2026-11-13

34In that regard, it should be noted that, in accordance with settled case-law, EUIPO is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of EU law. Although, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and of sound administration, EUIPO must take into account the decisions previously taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not, the way in which those principles are applied must be consistent with respect for the principle of legality. Moreover, for reasons of legal certainty and, indeed, of sound administration, the examination of any trade mark application must be stringent and comprehensive, in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered or annulled. Accordingly, such an examination must be undertaken in each individual case. The registration of a sign as a mark depends on specific criteria, which are applicable in the factual circumstances of the particular case and the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the sign at issue is caught by a ground for refusal (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 March 2011, Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, C‑51/10 P, EU:C:2011:139, paragraphs 73 to 77, and order of 26 May 2016, Hewlett Packard Development Company v EUIPO, C‑77/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:373, paragraph 4).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

History · 1 version

14 Feb 2019Reading

Connections

See on a map

Cited by 18: Rigo Trading SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-215/24); Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-82/24)2 provisions; Piaggio & C. SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-19/22); Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-589/20); Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-248/20); Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-239/20); Square, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-211/20); Square, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-210/20); Biovene Cosmetics, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-227/20); Biovene Cosmetics, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-232/20); Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-665/19); Promed GmbH kosmetische Erzeugnisse v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-30/20); Wonder Line, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-284/19); Nosio SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-54/19); Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-175/19); Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-68/18); Orkla Foods Danmark A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-34/19); C&A AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-753/18)
Cites 9: Regulation (EU) 2017/1001; Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Bundesverband Souvenir - Geschenke - Ehrenpreise eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-488/16 P); European Union Intellectual Property Office v Puma SE (C-564/16 P); Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-311/11 P); Novartis AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-678/15); Mag Instrument Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-136/02 P); Hewlett Packard Development Company LP v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-77/16); Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-51/10 P)2 provisions

34In that regard, it should be noted that, in accordance with settled case-law, EUIPO is under a duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of EU law. Although, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and of sound administration, EUIPO must take into account the decisions previously taken in respect of similar applications and consider with special care whether it should decide in the same way or not, the way in which those principles are applied must be consistent with respect for the principle of legality. Moreover, for reasons of legal certainty and, indeed, of sound administration, the examination of any trade mark application must be stringent and comprehensive, in order to prevent trade marks from being improperly registered or annulled. Accordingly, such an examination must be undertaken in each individual case. The registration of a sign as a mark depends on specific criteria, which are applicable in the factual circumstances of the particular case and the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the sign at issue is caught by a ground for refusal (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 March 2011, Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, C‑51/10 P, EU:C:2011:139, paragraphs 73 to 77, and order of 26 May 2016, Hewlett Packard Development Company v EUIPO, C‑77/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:373, paragraph 4).

Key facts

Court: General Court · Ninth Chamber
Case: T-123/18 · ECLI:EU:T:2019:95
Decided: 14 Feb 2019
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Rapporteur: K. Kowalik-Bańczyk
Bench: 3 judges
S. Gervasoni, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, C. Mac Eochaidh
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62018TJ0123

Topics

Trade marks

Judgment of 14 Feb 2019