Trade mark VERMÖGENSMANUFAKTUR declared invalid in respect of all services in Classes 35 and 36

Argument that trade mark VERMÖGENSMANUFAKTUR (registered prior to IP-translator (IPPT20120619)) has been annulled only for services falling under the literal meaning of the headings of Classes 35 and 36 fails: the trade mark was protected in respect of all services in those classes and therefore annulled by the Board of Appeal in respect of all the services in Classes 35 and 36, statement of reasons GEU sufficient. Argument that the General Court held that the contested trade is devoid of distinctive character only because the expression Vermögensmanufaktur constitutes a laudatory reference is, is based on incorrect reading of the judgment under appeal. Arguments put forward by the appellant concerning the use of refused evidence by the Board of Appeal are inadmissible: arguments only concern repetition of arguments at first instance.

TRADE MARK LAW

Appeal against the judgment of the EU General Court of 7 September 2017, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the trade mark “Vermögensmanufaktur” in its entirely. The appeal is dismissed.

The statement that trade mark VERMÖGENSMANUFAKTUR (registered prior to IP-translator (IPPT20120619)) has been annulled only for services falling under the literal meaning of the headings of Classes 35 and 36 fails, because it is based on a false premiss. VM Vermögens Management claims that, at the time of the declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal, its trade mark only concerned the general indications of the classheadings of Classes 35 and 36. With a reference to the Brandconcern v EUIPO judgment (IPPT20170216), the CJEU considers that this is not the case. VM Vermögens Management's statement of 2016 (following the decision of the Board of Appeal) was therefore not intended to bring new services under the protection of the contested trademark, but to ensure that the services to which this statement relates continue to enjoy such protection after the expiry of the period referred to in Article 28(8) EUTR, despite the fact that they do not clearly fall under the literal meaning of the names of the f the indications included in the headings of classes 35 and 36. The contested decision therefore covered all the services for which the contested mark is registered. In the view of the CJEU, the General Court also provided  a statement of reasons enabling the appellant to know why it dismissed its applications for amendment of the contested decision.

The argument that the General Court considered that the contested mark is devoid of distinctive character solely on the fact that the expression ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ is a laudatory reference, is based on an incorrect interpretation of the contested judgment, according to the CJEU. The ruling is not based solely on the laudatory character of the mark. The appellant's arguments concerning the use of evidence refused by the Board of Appeal in its decision are inadmissible, since they are merely a repetition of arguments at first instance and do not indicate in what way the Court of First Instance erred in law.

IPPT20190515, CJEU, VM Vermogens Management 

C-653/17 P - ECLI:EU:C:2019:406