This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TA0486
Case T-486/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark SUPERSKIN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Case T-486/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark SUPERSKIN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Case T-486/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark SUPERSKIN — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 50–50
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.1.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 24/50 |
Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN)
(Case T-486/08) (1)
(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark SUPERSKIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 24/88
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd (Ryde, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Cover, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1656/2007-4), concerning registration of the word sign SUPERSKIN as a Community trade mark.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1656/2007-4), in respect of perfumes, nail and hair care preparations, antiperspirants, deodorants, dentifrice, hair colouring preparations, hair spray, eyecare preparations, nail varnish, nail varnish remover and artificial nails, in Class 3, and hygienic care and cosmetic treatments for the hair, in Class 44; |
|
2. |
Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
|
3. |
Orders Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay half of OHIM’s costs, and OHIM to bear the other half of its costs. |