Corte di giustizia UE n. 207/2016

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 15 November 2016 ( * ) (Appeal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Word mark AROMA – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 207/2009 — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1)(a) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7(1)(b) and (c) — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑389/16 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 12 July 2016, BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH, formerly BSH Bosch und [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt, applicant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], resident in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), applicant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO), defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C. Toader (Rapporteur) and E. Jarašiūnas, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision by reasoned order, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its appeal, BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH seeks the setting aside of the judgment of 12 May 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO — BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (AROMA) (T‑749/14, not published, EU:T:2016:286) (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed its action seeking annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 1887/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA] and BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning the word mark AROMA. 2 BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should order EUIPO and [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 3 In support of its appeal, BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] puts forward two grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1)(a) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7(1)(c) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1). The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(1)(a) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 7(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 207/2009. The appeal 4 Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of its Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part. 5 It is appropriate to apply that provision to the present case. 6 On 7 October 2016, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took the following position: ‘1.      I propose to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to reject the appeal lodged by BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ... which seeks to have the [judgment under appeal] set aside. In my view the ... appeal is in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded for the following reasons: First ground of appeal: Breach of Articles 52(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [No] 207/2009 2.      By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is self-contradictory and distorts the facts of the case. As a result, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was wrong to hold that the mark “AROMA” was not descriptive. 3.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256 TFEU and the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an appeal lies on points of law only. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] thus has exclusive jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence. The appraisal of those facts and the assessment of that evidence thus do not, save where the facts and evidence are distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice on appeal (see, recently, judgment of 17 March 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v OHIM , C‑252/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:178, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited). 4.      Such distortion of the facts and evidence is exceptional in nature (see, recently, judgment of 22 September 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO , C‑442/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:720, paragraph 21) and must be obvious from the documents on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence (judgment of 18 March 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Makarov v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Commission , C‑419/08 P, EU:C:2010:147, paragraph 32). 5.      Nothing in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] presentation or assessment of the facts in this case amounts to such a manifest distortion. In particular, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] statements that the intended use of the goods at issue is not to obtain beverages or foodstuffs with aroma, and that “AROMA” involves “at most an indirect connection with those goods”, do not amount to such a distortion. 6.      As regards the alleged contradiction invoked, the appellant argues that it is “incomprehensible” that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on the one hand, acknowledged that the aroma of foods depends on the way they are cooked and, on the other, concluded that “AROMA” does “not allow for a direct reference to [the goods at issue] to be created without further thought” (paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal). 7.      Rather than identifying an actual contradiction in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reasoning, the appellant is in practice merely calling into question the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] assessment of the facts, that is, that the term “AROMA” is not descriptive, since the connection with the goods at issue is too indirect. As such, the appellant is essentially asking the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice to substitute its own assessment of the facts and evidence for that of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, recently, judgment of 17 March 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v OHIM , C‑252/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:178, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited). That line of argument is, therefore, inadmissible. 8.      To the extent the first ground alleges a distortion of the facts, it is manifestly unfounded. To the extent it in practice seeks a reappraisal of the facts, it is manifestly inadmissible. Second ground of appeal: Breach of [OSCURATO:PERSONA][s] 52(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [No] 207/2009 9.      By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the mark “AROMA” is descriptive and therefore cannot be distinctive. The appellant also alleges a distortion of the facts by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 10.      The second ground effectively refers to and relies on the first ground. It should therefore be rejected as partly manifestly unfounded and partly manifestly inadmissible for the same reasons as those set out above at points 2 to 7.’ 7 For the same reasons as those given by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the appeal must be dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Costs 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those Rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. Since the present order was adopted before the application was served on the other parties to the proceedings and therefore before they could have incurred costs, BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. BSH [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH is to bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 15 November 2016. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.