Summary:
Original Link:
Original Article:
Case C-17/24, CeramTec: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation – France) – CeramTec GmbH v Coorstek Bioceramics LLC (Reference for a preliminary ruling – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Article 52(1)(a) and (b) – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Bad faith of the applicant – Autonomy and coexistence of the absolute grounds for invalidity – Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is acting in bad faith when filing an application for a trade mark – Matters arising after that application is filed)
Referring court: Cour de cassation
Parties to the main proceedings:
– Appellant: CeramTec GmbH
– Respondent: Coorstek Bioceramics LLC
Operative part of the judgment:
1. Article 52(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the absolute ground for invalidity laid down in Article 52(1)(a) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation, and the absolute ground for invalidity laid down in Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation are autonomous, but not mutually exclusive.
2. Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that bad faith on the part of the applicant for registration of a sign as a trade mark may, if that registration was sought following the expiry of a patent, be substantiated inter alia on the basis of the opinion of that applicant as to the suitability of that sign for expressing fully or partially the technical solution protected by that patent, irrespective of whether that sign consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation. The relevant circumstances for assessing whether there was bad faith on the part of the applicant also include the nature of the contested mark, the origin of the sign at issue and its use since its creation, the scope of the expired patent, the commercial rationale underlying the filing of the application for registration of the contested mark, and the chronology of events characterising that filing.
3. Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the applicant’s bad faith may not be assessed on the basis of circumstances arising after the filing of the application for registration of the mark at issue.