Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62004TJ0388

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006.
Habib Kachakil Amar v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Figurative mark in the form of a longitudinal line ending with a triangle - Refusal to register - Lack of distinctive character - Acquisition of a distinctive character through use.
Case T-388/04.

European Court Reports 2006 II-00035*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2006:107





Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 April 2006 − Kachakil Amar v OHIM (longitudinal line ending with a triangle)

(Case T-388/04)

Community trade mark – Figurative mark in the form of a longitudinal line ending with a triangle – Refusal to register – Lack of distinctive character – Acquisition of a distinctive character through use

Community trade marks – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(3)) (see points 39-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2004 (R 175/2004-1) which refused to register the figurative mark ‘Longitudinal line ending with a triangle’ as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case:

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

––

Community trade mark sought:

Figurative mark consisting of a longitudinal line ending with a triangle – Application No 3.235.157 for goods in Class 25 (clothes, shoes, hats, including sports shoes)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

––

Mark or sign cited:

––

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Dismissal of the application, the mark being considered as falling under the absolute grounds for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal


Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

Top