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.