Case T-327/12

Simca Europe Ltd

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Simca — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber), 8 May 2014

1.      Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it — Exclusion

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(4); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))

3.      Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Criteria for assessment — Taking account of all the relevant factors existing at the time of filing the application for registration — Applicant aware of the use by a third party of an identical or similar sign — Intention of the applicant — Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue — Extent of reputation — Origin of the disputed trade mark — Commercial logic underlying the registration of the sign contested as a Community trade mark

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

4.      Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Word mark Simca

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

5.      Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 26)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 28, 29, 32)

3.      The applicant’s bad faith within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09 on the Community trade mark should must be assessed as a whole, taking account of all the factors in the particular case, and, in particular:

–        the fact that the applicant knows or should know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product liable to be confused with the sign for which registration is sought;

–        the applicant’s intention of preventing that third party from continuing to use such a sign;

–        the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.

In addition, the intention of preventing certain goods from being marketed may, in certain circumstances, be indicative of bad faith on the part of the applicant. That is the case, in particular, where it subsequently becomes apparent that the applicant had the sign registered as a Community trade mark with no intention of using it, his sole objective being to prevent a third party from entering the market.

That being so, the three factors set out above are only examples drawn from a number of factors which can be taken into account in order to decide whether the applicant was acting in bad faith at the time of filing the application. In the context of the overall analysis undertaken pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, account may also be taken of the origin of the word or the sign which forms the mark at issue and of the earlier use of that word or sign in business as a mark, in particular by competing undertakings, and of the commercial logic underlying the filing of the application for registration of that word or that sign as a Community trade mark.

Moreover, the intention of the applicant to prevent a third party from continuing to use the mark is a subjective factor which has to be determined by reference to the objective circumstances of the given case.

(see paras 36-39, 55)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 41, 42, 45, 49, 56, 61-63)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 82)