Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CB0017

    Case C-17/08 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 February 2009 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Refusal of registration — Word mark manufacturing score card — Descriptive character)

    SL C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.5.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 113/15


    Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 February 2009 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    (Case C-17/08 P) (1)

    (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Refusal of registration - Word mark manufacturing score card - Descriptive character)

    2009/C 113/29

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH (represented by: W. Göpfert, Rechtsanwalt)

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

    Re:

    Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 in Case T-459/05 MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (manufacturing score card), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005, which dismissed the appeal against the decision of the examiner refusing registration of the word mark ‘manufacturing score card’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 — Distinctive character of a word mark consisting of words each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned

    Operative part of the order

    1.

    The appeal is dismissed.

    2.

    MPDV Mikrolab GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


    Top