Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2015

1. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterConcept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterMarks constituted of advertising slogansDistinctive characterApplication of specific criteria for assessmentInadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

3. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterMarks constituted of advertising slogansSlogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

4. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterMarks constituted of advertising slogansFlattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

5. Community trade markDefinition and acquisition of the Community trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterMarks constituted of advertising slogansWord mark 2good (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-23, 30, 31)

6. Community trade markDecisions of the OfficePrinciple of equal treatmentPrinciple of sound administrationOHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 38-40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2014 (Case R 996/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign 2good as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.