EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TA0591

Case T-591/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast) (Community mark — Application for Community word mark PerfectRoast — Refusal of registration — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

OJ C 389, 23.11.2015, p. 53–53 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.11.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/53


Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — BSH v OHIM (PerfectRoast)

(Case T-591/14) (1)

((Community mark - Application for Community word mark PerfectRoast - Refusal of registration - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 (Case R 359/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PerfectRoast.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 June 2014 (Case R 359/2014-5) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the examiner’s decision to reject the application for registration of the Community trade mark PerfectRoast for ‘water heaters’, ‘immersion heaters’ and ‘egg-cookers’.

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


Top