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-702/18 P / Opinion

Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe „Primart” Marek Łukasiewicz v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Advocate General
Decision date
28/11/2019
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2019:1030

Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-702/18 P / Opinion

    Key facts of the case:

    Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for EU figurative mark PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz — Earlier national trade mark PRIMA — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 76(1) — Scope of review by the General Court of the European Union.

    Outcome of the case:

    I therefore suggest that the Court:

    • set aside the judgment of 12 September 2018, Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz) (T‑584/17, not published, EU:T:2018:530);
    • refer the case back to the General Court; and
    • order that the costs be reserved.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    71) As Primart rightly argues, in so far as the Board of Appeal took those aspects into consideration of its own motion, it must have the right to challenge the related findings before the General Court. It is hardly necessary to point out that, under Article 263 TFEU, especially when read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, an applicant must, in principle, be able to contest before the EU Courts each and every issue of fact and law on which an EU body bases its decisions. That is even more the case where, at the appellate administrative level before an EU body, that appellate body is allowed to introduce, of its own motion and for the first time, crucial elements that did not feature previously in the first-instance administrative decision and on which the applicant or parties had no opportunity of being heard.