Community trade mark Absolute ground for refusal Lack of distinctive character Error of law Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Application for the Community word mark ‘E’ Lack of real assessment
Sumário
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2008.
Paul Hartmann AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ‘E’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Error of law - Lack of real assessment - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
Case T-302/06.
Texto da decisão
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Hartmann v OHIM (E)
(Case T-302/06)
Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark ‘E’ – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Error of law – Lack of real assessment – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark – Letters and numbers (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)
2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 32-35)
Re:
| ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘E’ as a Community trade mark. |
Information relating to the case
|
Applicant for the Community trade mark: |
Paul Hartmann AG |
|
Community trade mark sought: |
Word mark E for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25 – Application No 4316949 |
|
Decision of the examiner: |
Registration refused |
|
Decision of the Board of Appeal: |
Appeal dismissed |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4); |
|
2. |
Orders OHIM to pay its own costs as well as those of Paul Hartmann AG. |