This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CO0056
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011. # Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative marks 100 and 300 - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 38(2) - Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for. # Case C-56/10 P.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011.
Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative marks 100 and 300 - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 38(2) - Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for.
Case C-56/10 P.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011.
Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative marks 100 and 300 - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 38(2) - Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for.
Case C-56/10 P.
European Court Reports 2011 I-00089*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2011:417
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM
(Case C-56/10 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Figurative marks 100 and 300 – Refusal of registration – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) – Distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 38(2) – Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for
1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlapping of the fields of application of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 29)
2. Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations – Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Purpose – No decisive effect on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c)) of that regulation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see para. 58)
3. Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 65)
Re:
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T‑425/07 and T‑426/07 | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol | v | OHIM | , by which that court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks – Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) – Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures. |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs. |