EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TA0687

Case T-687/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and five stars) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and five stars — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of concrete assessment — Duty to state reasons)

OJ C 361, 13.10.2014, p. 7–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/7


Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and five stars)

(Case T-687/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and five stars - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of concrete assessment - Duty to state reasons))

2014/C 361/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, and O. Klimis, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2), concerning an application for the registration of a sign representing two lines and five stars 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 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Unibail Management for products and services falling within classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42);

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


Top