Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2005/057/56

    Case T-487/04: Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

    OB C 57, 5.3.2005, p. 33–33 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.3.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 57/33

    Action brought on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

    (Case T-487/04)

    (2005/C 57/56)

    Language in which the application was lodged: French

    An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 December 2004 by Falcon Sporting Goods AG, established in Zug (Switzerland), represented by Jörg Weigell, lawyer.

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Decision R 176/2004-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004;

    —

    order OHIM to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Community trade mark sought:

    Word mark ‘BIN LADIN’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41 – Application No 2 223 907.

    Decision of the examiner:

    Refusal to register.

    Decision of the Board of Appeal:

    Dismissal of the appeal.

    Pleas in law:

    Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant claims that registration of the mark in question would not be contrary to either public policy or accepted principles of morality.
    Top