This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/281/39
Case T-320/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Citicorp v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark LIVE RICHLY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
Case T-320/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Citicorp v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark LIVE RICHLY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
Case T-320/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Citicorp v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark LIVE RICHLY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
SL C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 21–21
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.11.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 281/21 |
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Citicorp v OHIM
(Case T-320/03) (1)
(Community trade mark - Word mark LIVE RICHLY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to be heard - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
(2005/C 281/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant(s): Citicorp (New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers)
Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen, P. Bullock and A. von Mühlendahl, Agents)
Application for
annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-3), concerning an application to register the word mark LIVE RICHLY as a Community trade mark
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1) |
Dismisses the application; |
|
2) |
Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, in addition to one half of the costs incurred by the defendant; |
|
3) |
Orders the defendant to bear one half of its own costs. |