Corrigendum

Gerecht EU 22 november 2011, zaak T-275/10 (mPay24 tegen OHMI/Ultra, inzake mPay24)

Gemeenschapsmerk. Nietigheidsprocedure inzake gemeenschapswoordmerk MPAY24 (o.a. software, hardware, advertentie, telecom). Absolute weigeringsgrond: beschrijvend karakter. Non-existente bevoegdheid van OHIM: correctie van beslissing (niet behandeld door Gerecht EU). OHIM heeft een fout gemaakt, zij heeft geen onderzoek gedaan naar of  'general statement of reasons' gemaakt over het beschrijvend karakter van het teken MPAY24 in relatie met de goederen en diensten waarvoor het merk werd aangevraagd. De correctie door het OHIM van 3 augustus 2010 bevestigd dit. Vernietiging van de OHIM-beslissing volgt.

55 The applicant submits that the goods and services covered by the contested mark do not constitute one category allowing a general statement of reasons. As the Board of Appeal’s analysis ignored the differences between the goods and services in question, it is, consequently, incomplete and incorrect. The applicant adds that the fact that the Board of Appeal supplemented its reasoning on this point by means of the corrigendum of 3 August 2010 proves that OHIM itself considered that its reasoning was insufficient.

57 In that regard, it must also be recalled that, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, OHIM decisions must state the reasons on which they are based. Moreover, it should be added that OHIM’s obligation to state reasons has the same meaning as that resulting from Article 296 TFEU. It is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must set out clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the body which adopted the act in question. The purpose of that obligation is twofold: firstly, to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure in order to defend their rights and, secondly, to enable the Community Courts to exercise their power to review the legality of the decision (see Case C‑447/02 P KWS Saat v OHIM [2004] ECR I‑10107, paragraphs 63 to 65 and the case-law cited).

58 In the present case, however, as is apparent from the contested decision, the Board of Appeal did not carry out a specific analysis of the descriptive character of the sign MPAY24 in connection with the goods and services covered by the mark applied for. Consequently, in the absence of such an analysis, the Board of Appeal did not comply with the obligation to state reasons set out in the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.