Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2020

1. EU trade markProcedural provisionsStatement of reasons for decisionsFirst sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEURecourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoningWhether permissibleConditions

(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)

(see paras 15-17)

2. Acts of the institutionsStatement of reasonsObligationScopePlea alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasonsPlea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasonsDistinction

(Art. 296 TFEU)

(see para. 18)

3. EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityCauses of revocationAbsence of genuine use of a trade markProof of useGenuine useDefinitionAssessment criteria

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a))

(see paras 31-36, 43)

4. EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityCauses of revocationAbsence of genuine use of a trade markFigurative mark Jokers WILD Casino

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a))

(see paras 42, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53)

5. EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityCauses of revocationAbsence of genuine use of a trade markProof of useProbative value of the evidenceAssessment criteria

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 97(1)(f))

(see paras 45, 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2019 (Case R 803/2018-1), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maternus GmbH to pay the costs.