This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/069/52
Case T-23/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)
Case T-23/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)
Case T-23/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)
OJ C 69, 24.3.2007, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.3.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 69/24 |
Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)
(Case T-23/07)
(2007/C 69/52)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GbmH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by M. Wolter, lawyer)
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 of 30 November 2006 in Case R 0808/2006-4; |
|
— |
Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 do not preclude publication of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 33 (‘alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), wines, sparkling wines and beverages containing wine’); |
|
— |
Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘α ’for goods in Class 33 (Application No 4 634 663).
Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that it is wrongly held that absolute grounds for refusal exist. Furthermore, the scope and meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 are misconstrued.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).