Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2024

1. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterConcept of distinctivenessInterpretation in the light of the concept of public interest seeking to confer the protection envisaged by Regulation 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 18, 20)

2. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterAssessment of distinctive characterCriteria

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 19, 21, 31)

3. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterMarks consisting of advertising slogansDistinctive characterCriteria for assessment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))

(see paragraph 22)

4. EU trade markDefinition and acquisition of the EU trade markAbsolute grounds for refusalMarks devoid of any distinctive characterWord mark WellBack

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 29, 33, 35, 37)

5. EU trade markDecisions of EUIPOPrinciple of equal treatmentPrinciple of sound administrationEUIPO’s previous decision-making practicePrinciple of legalityNeed for a stringent and full examination in each individual case

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)

(see paragraphs 41, 42)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Declares that Ergotopia GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) are each to bear their own costs.