EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TA0191

Case T-191/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

IO C 282, 21.11.2009, p. 45–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/45


Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle)

(Case T-191/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 282/85

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte, T. Frank, A. Theil, H-P. Rühland, B. Willers and T. Rein, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 1822/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


Top