Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TJ0200

    Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2010.
    Interflon BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
    Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark FOODLUBE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).
    Case T-200/08.

    European Court Reports 2010 II-00210*

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2010:414





    Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2010 – Interflon v OHIM – Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)

    (Case T-200/08)

    Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community trade mark FOODLUBE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

    Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7(1)(b), and (c) and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 31, 47-48, 61-66)

    Re:

    ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007‑2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

    Information relating to the case

    Registered Community trade mark of which cancellation sought:

    Word mark FOODLUBE for goods in Classes 1 and 4 – Registration No 1647734

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

    Illinois Tools Works, Inc.

    Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

    Interflon BV

    Trade mark of the party seeking cancellation:

    The applicant argues that the contested Community trade mark was registered in infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c)

    Decision of the Cancellation Division:

    Application for cancellation dismissed

    Decision of the Board of Appeal:

    Appeal dismissed


    Operative part

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007‑2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;

    2.

    Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

    3.

    Orders each party to bear its own costs.

    Top