This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/199/80
Case T-224/07: Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)
Case T-224/07: Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)
Case T-224/07: Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)
SL C 199, 25.8.2007, pp. 42–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.8.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 199/42 |
Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)
(Case T-224/07)
(2007/C 199/80)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Chandler, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
|
— |
The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 30 March 2007 in Case R 1631/2006-1 shall be annulled. |
|
— |
The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIGHT & SPACE’ for goods in class 2 — application No 5 147 756
Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal regarded the trade mark in question as if it were an advertising slogan, indication of quality or incitement to purchase without considering whether the trade mark could also be an indication of origin.
Furthermore, the Board of Appeal erred in its examination of the trade mark as a whole and in its examination of its component parts and committed an error of law by requiring that the trade mark combines words that are unusual or out of the ordinary in relation to the goods in question in order to acquire distinctive character.
Finally the Board of Appeal did not assess distinctiveness in relation to the specific goods applied for.