BASF v EUIPO - Evonik Industries (DINCH) (Judgment) French Text [2017] EUECJ T-721/15 (27 April 2017)

BASF v EUIPO - Evonik Industries (DINCH) (Judgment) French Text [2017] EUECJ T-721/15 (27 April 2017)

DINCH, as an acronym formed according to industry nomenclature, was directly descriptive of the relevant chemical product's components to the specialized public and thus fell under Article 7(1)(c); the appeal was rejected without need to address distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b).

Citation
[2017] EUECJ T-721/15
Parties
Applicant: BASF SE; Respondent: EUIPO; Intervenor: Evonik Industries AG
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
EU Trademark Nullity Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From EUIPO Board of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trademark Distinctiveness, Trademark Descriptiveness, Absolute Grounds for Refusal, Nullity Proceedings
Intellectual Property European Union Law Trademark Distinctiveness Trademark Descriptiveness Absolute Grounds for Refusal Nullity Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BASF SE

Applicant

EUIPO

Respondent

Evonik Industries AG

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

EU Trademark Nullity Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From EUIPO Board of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mark DINCH is descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
  2. 2 Whether the mark DINCH lacks distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Ratio Decidendi

DINCH, as an acronym formed according to industry nomenclature, was directly descriptive of the relevant chemical product's components to the specialized public and thus fell under Article 7(1)(c); the appeal was rejected without need to address distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is rejected.
  • BASF SE is condemned to pay costs.