Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011TN0263

    Case T-263/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)

    SL C 238, 13.8.2011, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    23/05/2011
    Date lodged:
    23/05/2011
    Author:
    Opći sud
    Form:
    Pravosudna informacija
    Authentic language:
    njemački
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    13.8.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 238/19

    Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)

    (Case T-263/11)

    2011/C 238/34

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by C. Russ, lawyer)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2011 in Case R 605/2010-4.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of an octagon with green sides — application No 8 248 965.

    Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive on account of the identifiable, spatial representation.

    Top