Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TA0222

Case T-222/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community mark deluxe — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

OJ C 236, 20.7.2015, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

20.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/40


Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe)

(Case T-222/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community mark deluxe - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Deluxe Laboratories, Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign deluxe as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2);

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


Top