Key facts of the case:
Appeal — European Union trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Opposition proceedings — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rules 19 and 50(1) — Concept of ‘reputation’ — Probative value of earlier EUIPO decisions recognising the reputation of an earlier trade mark — Concept of ‘previous decision-making practice’ — Obligation to state reasons — Procedural obligations of the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO
Outcome of the case:
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
26) Having found certain images submitted by Puma to be inadmissible because they were produced for the first time before it, the General Court examined the two arguments relied on by Puma in the context of its first plea. It restated the content of the right to good administration, which includes, inter alia, the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decision, observing that the purpose of that obligation to state reasons is twofold: first, to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure in order to defend their rights and, secondly, to enable the Courts of the European Union to exercise their power to review the legality of the decision.
(26)The General Court makes reference here to paragraphs 18 and 20 of the judgment under appeal, which expressly refer to Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the obligation to give reasons for decisions laid down therein.