Trinity Haircare AG v EUIPO Case T-453/13
David represented the intervener, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., proprietor of an EUTM incorporating the word “VOGUE” registered in respect of goods including beauty and personal care products, in an appeal to the General Court from a decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
The appellant argued that the Court should annul the decision of the Board of Appeal and declare the contested EUTM invalid, on the basis that the Board of Appeal had erred in holding that: (i) the EUTM was not descriptive; (ii) the EUTM was not devoid of distinctive character; and/or (iii) the Intervener had not acted in bad faith by previously submitting applications for identical trade marks in several member states.
The General Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In relation to the allegation of bad faith, the Court held that the EUTM system was independent and self-sufficient of national systems and the possibility of submitting an application for an EU trade mark in order to obtain unitary protection over and above the protection granted by national marks was not itself an act of bad faith, and moreover was consonant with commercial logic.