Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TB0805

Case T-805/14: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM) (European Union trade mark — Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

IO C 260, 18.7.2016, p. 39–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.7.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/39


Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM)

(Case T-805/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 260/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stagecoach Group plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Jacobs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1894/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MEGABUS.COM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2.

Stagecoach Group plc shall pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


Top