CJEU: General Court unclear in its considerations on the laudatory character of the word 'So'

TRADE MARK LAW

The General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons by presenting contradicting statements on the laudatory character of the word ‘so’ in its reasoning.

"36. Consequently, it must be held that the statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal is contradictory in that regard, because, in expressing its views concerning the earlier marks, the General Court stated, on the one hand, in paragraph 73 of that judgment, that the element ‘so’, the only word element in those marks, had a laudatory function and, on the other hand, in paragraph 87 of that judgment, that that laudatory function existed when the element ‘so’ was accompanied by another word. Such a contradiction in the reasoning amounts to a failure to state reasons. In the present case, the parties and the Court are unable to ascertain whether, in the General Court’s analysis, the word element ‘so’ has a laudatory function only when it is used with another word or also when it is used on its own.

37. It follows that the General Court did not comply with its obligation to state reasons for the judgment under appeal in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 32 of the present judgment."

IPPT20161027, CJEU, Debonair v EUIPO

C-537/14 P - ECLI:EU:C:2016:814