28.4.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 95/55 |
Action brought on 15 March 2007 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)
(Case T-80/07)
(2007/C 95/111)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: JanSport Apparel Corp. (Wilmington, USA) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, C. Casalonga, K. Dimidjian-Lecompte, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the contested decision R 1090/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal, dated 12 January 2007, partially refusing the registration of CTM Application No 2937522 BUILT TO RESIST for the following goods:
|
— |
order that the Office pay the applicant's costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The national word mark 'BUILT TO RESIST' for goods and services in classes 16, 18 and 25 — application No 293 7522
Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94.
First, with regards to the descriptiveness of the word mark claimed, the applicant submits that the latter enables the relevant public to discern immediately and without further reflection any of the characteristics of the goods offered. The simple fact that the word mark at stake is evocative of the goods claimed is not sufficient, according to the applicant, to be refused registration and thus, the afforded protection on the basis of Article 7(1)(c). Moreover, the applicant contends that pursuant to established case-law, even if a slogan may also serve marketing or advertising purposes, in addition to its principal function as a trade mark, it should not be refused registration. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the fact that the word mark was registered at a national level, in the United States, for the same products, proves that it is capable of being perceived by the public and in fact for English speaking consumers, as an indication of commercial origin.
Second, with regards to its inherent distinctiveness, the applicant claims that the word mark provides at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness which should allow the registration to proceed.