Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 October 2021 –
Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL)

(Case T‑732/20)

(EU trade mark – EU word mark CRYSTAL – Failure to apply for renewal of the trade mark registration – Revocation of the trade mark on expiry of the registration – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Duty of care – No review – Failure to comply with time limits)

1.      EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions – Due care required by the circumstances – Exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 104(1))

(see paras 18, 19, 28)

2.      EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions under which applicable – Restrictive interpretation

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 104(1))

(see paras 20, 21, 38)

3.      EU trade mark – Duration, renewal, alteration and division of the mark – Renewal of the mark – Time limits – No renewal of the mark by its proprietor within the prescribed period – Revocation of the trade mark – Application for restitutio in integrum – Duty of care – Obligation to verify whether tax has been paid

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 53(3) and (8) and 104(1))

(see paras 31, 32, 34-37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 (Case R 1056/2020-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum in relation to the right to apply for renewal of the EU word mark CRYSTAL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Andreas Freundlieb to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).