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 C2005/296/60

Case T-339/05: Action brought on 9 September 2005 — MacLean-Fogg/OHIM

OJ C 296, 26.11.2005, p. 28–28 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/28

Action brought on 9 September 2005 — MacLean-Fogg/OHIM

(Case T-339/05)

(2005/C 296/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): MacLean-Fogg Company (Mundelein, USA) [represented by: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Bertram, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl, S. Prückner, C. Schmitt, B. Mehnert, P. Lübbe, S. Brötje, lawyers]

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

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in the case R 1122/2004-1 of June 20, 2005;

—

order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LOKTHREAD’ for goods in class 6 (bolts, bolts of metal, nuts, nuts of metal) — application No 3 440 666

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark has to be considered as a whole and not as composed of two English words and thus possesses a minimum degree of distinctiveness.

Top