Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62005TA0458

Case T-458/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TEK — Subject-matter of the proceedings — Observance of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

OJ C 8, 12.1.2008, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.1.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/13


Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK)

(Case T-458/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TEK - Subject-matter of the proceedings - Observance of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 8/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil-Oberhofen, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the Court of First Instance: Wuppermann AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Huisken, and subsequently by I. Friedhoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 October 2005 (Case R 1063/2004-2), as rectified on 16 November 2005, relating to invalidity proceedings between Wuppermann AG and Tegometall International AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

3.

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


Top