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-240/18 P / Opinion

Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Advocate General
Type
Opinion
Decision date
02/07/2019
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2019:553

Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 41 - Right to good administration

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-240/18 P / Opinion

    Key facts of the case:#

    Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(f) — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to accepted principles of morality — Word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ — Rejection of the application for registration.

    Outcome of the case:

    I suggest that the Court of Justice:

    • Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 January 2018, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO(Fack Ju Göhte), (T‑69/17, not published, EU:T:2018:27);
    • Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2205/2015-5, Fack Ju Göhte);
    • Order the EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Constantin Film Produktion GmbH both in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal in the present case.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    48) First, respect for fundamental rights constitutes a condition of the lawfulness of any EU measure. The scope of application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the fundamental rights guaranteed therein extends to any activity or omission of EU institutions and bodies. ( 19 ) The same must naturally hold true in the field of trade marks for activities and omissions of EU bodies, such as EUIPO.

    ...

    109) The Court further noted that ‘the right to sound administration, in accordance with Article 41(2) of the [Charter] … includes the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. That obligation … 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’. ( 65 )