smart things solutions v EUIPO (EU trade mark - Order) [2021] EUECJ C-681/20P_CO (24 March 2021)

smart things solutions v EUIPO (EU trade mark - Order) [2021] EUECJ C-681/20P_CO (24 March 2021)

The appellant failed to demonstrate, with concrete and case-specific arguments, that the appeal raised issues significant to the unity, consistency, or development of EU law as required by Article 58a of the Statute and related procedural rules. Arguments were either factual or lacked specificity and legal significance.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ C-681/20P_CO
Parties
Appellant: smart things solutions GmbH; Defendant at First Instance: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); Intervener at First Instance: Samsung Electronics GmbH
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union / Order on Whether Appeal May Proceed
Outcome
Appeal not allowed to proceed
Legal Topics
EU Trade Mark, Appeal Procedure, Descriptive Character, Distinctive Character, Principles of Equal Treatment, Sound Administration, Burden of Proof
Intellectual Property European Union Law EU Trade Mark Appeal Procedure Descriptive Character Distinctive Character Principles of Equal Treatment Sound Administration +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

smart things solutions GmbH

Appellant

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant at First Instance

Samsung Electronics GmbH

Intervener at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union / Order on Whether Appeal May Proceed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal raises issues significant to the unity, consistency or development of EU law
  2. 2 Assessment of descriptive and distinctive character of trade marks
  3. 3 Obligation of EUIPO to consider previous decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate, with concrete and case-specific arguments, that the appeal raised issues significant to the unity, consistency, or development of EU law as required by Article 58a of the Statute and related procedural rules. Arguments were either factual or lacked specificity and legal significance.

Court Disposition

Appeal not allowed to proceed

Orders

  • The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
  • smart things solutions GmbH shall bear its own costs.