Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0387

Case T-387/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

IO C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806150721955032018/C 231/323872017TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516262611

Case T-387/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

Top

C2312018EN2610120180516EN0032261261

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Triggerball v EUIPO (Shape of a ball-like object with edges)

(Case T-387/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a ball-like object with edges — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’

2018/C 231/32Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Triggerball GmbH (Baiern-Piusheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Emrich, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 (Case R 376/2017-4), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a ball-like object with edges as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Triggerball GmbH to pay the costs.


( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

Top