Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6March 2015—
Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)
(Case T‑513/13)
Community trade mark— Application for Community word mark SafeSet— Absolute grounds for refusal— Descriptive character— Article7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No207/2009— Obligation to state reasons— First sentence of Article75 of Regulation No207/2009— Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion— Article76(1) of Regulation No207/2009
1.Community trade mark— Procedural provisions— Statement of reasons for decisions— Article75, first sentence, of Regulation No207/2009— Scope identical to that of Article296 TFEU— Logical statement of reasons (Art.296 TFEU; Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.75, first sentence) (see paras11, 12)
2.Community trade mark— Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark— Absolute grounds for refusal— Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods— Concept— Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.7(1)(c)) (see paras29-31)
3.Community trade mark— Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark— Absolute grounds for refusal— Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods— Word mark SafeSet (Council Regulation No207/2009, Art.7(1)(c)) (see paras37-40)
4.Community trade mark— Decisions of the Office— Principle of equal treatment— Principle of sound administration— OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras44-46)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27June 2013 (Case R1598/2012‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SafeSet as a Community trade mark. |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
| Dismisses the action; |
2. |
| Orders B.Braun Melsungen AG to pay the costs. |