EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0639
Case T-639/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
Case T-639/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
Case T-639/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
OJ C 49, 18.2.2012, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 49/29 |
Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
(Case T-639/11)
2012/C 49/53
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Heads! GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, 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 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in Case R 2348/2010-1 in so far as the registration of trade mark No 8327926 ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35 (Business management; Business administration; Personnel and management consulting services; Personnel marketing; Recruitment of specialist and senior staff; Provision of temporary specialist and senior staff (temporary management)) was refused; |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35.
Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character and since the Board of Appeal did not make any specific findings with regard to the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on which its decision is based; wrongfully took as a basis for its assessment word combinations not covered by the application for registration; wrongly relied on a decision of the (German) Federal Patent Court; and the conclusions drawn from the presumed point of view of the target public do not apply.