The applicant had submitted an application for registration of an EU trade mark for the word sign MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY for goods and services in classes 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 19-22 and 37 of the Nice Agreement. The EUIPO examiner rejected the application on the grounds that it lacked any distinctive character. The appellant lodged an appeal before the EUIPO and the EUIPO Board of Appeal rejected the appeal considering that the sign was devoid of any distinctive character, as the relevant public would perceive the expression 'mobile living made easy'” living easily made easy” as a laudatory promotional message which serves to highlight positive aspects of the goods and services concerned, namely that they make an itinerant, mobile life easy, and not as an indication of their commercial origin.

The Court held that, in order to determine whether the goods and services which are the subject of an application for registration of an EU trade mark are interconnected in a sufficiently direct and specific way and can be included in sufficiently homogeneous categories or groups, account must be taken of fact that the objective of this task is to allow and facilitate the concrete evaluation of the question of whether or not the trademark which is the subject of the application for registration is caught by one of the absolute grounds for refusal. Recalling the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU, the Court also stated that the placing of the goods and services in question in one or more groups or categories must be made in particular on the basis of the characteristics which are common between them and which are relevant for the analysis of whether or not a specific ground for refusal applies to the mark applied for in respect of those goods and services.

Furthermore, it must be examined whether, in light of the meaning of the verbal element of the trademark requested, the goods and services covered by the trademark in question constitute a homogeneous group which justifies the use of general reasons.

The Court further recalled the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU which states that, despite their differences, all the goods and services in question could have a common characteristic, relevant for the analysis that the Board of Appeal had to carry out, which could justify their placement within a single homogeneous group and the use by the Board of Appeal of general reasons in relation to them.

In this case, the Court considered that it is clear from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal judged that the goods and services mentioned in the application for registration belonged to a homogeneous category in light of a common characteristic defined by the reference to the meaning of the sign requested , that is, “which facilitates mobile life”. In this regard, “although the goods of the various classes have very different specific characteristics, they form a homogeneous category concerning a general, but essential or desirable characteristic, for those who travel, for example, in their vehicles by land or by water, namely, in one way or another, goods facilitate mobile living (providing means for the specific purposes of personal hygiene, security, energy, cooking, food and drink storage, thermal comfort or comfort in general)”.

The Court recognized that the Board of Appeal therefore took into account the fact that the application for registration concerned goods and services with different characteristics. Nonetheless, it judged that such goods and services also had a general characteristic in common of facilitating mobile living.

Furthermore, the Court stated that the Board of Appeal highlighted that the class 37 services mentioned in the application for registration covered recreational vehicles, campers, caravans, yachts and boats, passenger vehicles, vans and trucks which could serve as permanent or temporary accommodation for professional or recreational purposes and that the goods in question could be installed or used in those vehicles. Accordingly, goods that are installed or used in such vehicles must be considered goods that facilitate mobile life in one way or another.

Therefore, the Court shared the opinion of the Board of Appeal according to which the requested sign will therefore not be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of the origin of the goods and services in question, but as an advertising slogan. Furthermore, the requested sign does not include any unusual element capable of giving distinctive character to that sign.

Therefore, the Court confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal by holding that this sign does not include any element that could, in addition to its promotional meaning, allow the relevant public to easily and instantly memorize it as a trademark for the goods and services in question.