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 62011TN0640

Case T-640/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE)

OJ C 58, 25.2.2012, p. 10–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
16/12/2011
Date lodged:
16/12/2011
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

25.2.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/10

Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE)

(Case T-640/11)

2012/C 58/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and C. Steudtner, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2011 in case R 756/2011-4;

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RELY-ABLE’ for services in classes 38, 41 and 42 — International Registration (IR) No 1044333

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the protection of the mark in the European Union for all the services applied for.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the sign applied for is ‘not particularly fanciful or arbitrary’ and an ‘obvious misspelling of the word reliable’ with the result that it would be perceived as laudatory. It further erred when assuming that misspellings are ‘a frequent feature of promotional messages’ and that this was relevant to the case at hand.

Top