Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2022

EU trade markAppeals procedureAction before the EU judicaturePower of the General Court to alter the contested decisionLimits

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3))

(see paragraphs 18, 85-87)

EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityAbsolute grounds for invalidityApplicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark applicationCriteria for assessmentTaking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registrationApplicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar signIntention of the applicantOrigin and use of the sign in disputeCommercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade markChronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 29-37)

EU trade markSurrender, revocation and invalidityAbsolute grounds for invalidityApplicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark applicationWord mark SALATINA

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 70, 79-81)

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4);

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.