Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Case C-564/16 / Judgment

European Union Intellectual Property Office v Puma SE
Policy area
Internal market
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Second Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
28/06/2018
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2018:509

Харта на основните права на Европейския съюз

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 41 - Right to good administration

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-564/16 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Article 76 — Opposition proceedings — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 19 — Rule 50(1) — Earlier decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) recognising the reputation of the earlier trade mark — Principle of sound administration — Taking account of those decisions in subsequent opposition proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Procedural obligations of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

    1. Dismisses the appeal;
    2. Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    64) The Court of Justice has also already explained, as the General Court pointed out in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment under appeal, that the right to sound administration, in accordance with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, includes the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. That obligation, which also stems from Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, has the dual purpose of enabling interested parties to know the purported justification for the measure taken so as to be able to defend their rights and of enabling the Courts of the European Union to exercise their jurisdiction to review the legality of the decision in question (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 May 2012, Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM, C‑100/11 P, EU:C:2012:285, paragraph 111, and of 17 March 2016, Naazneen v OHIM, C‑252/15 P, EU:C:2016:178, paragraph 29).