Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007TJ0297

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008.
TridonicAtco GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94.
Case T-297/07.

European Court Reports 2008 II-00222*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2008:445





Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2008 – TridonicAtco v OHIM (Intelligent Voltage Guard)

(Case T-297/07)

Community trade mark – Application for the Community figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94

1.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Seperate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services referred to in the application registration – Duty to state reasons for a refusal of registration (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 22)

2.                     Community trade mark – 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(1)(b)) (see paras 29-39)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 108/2007-2) concerning an application to register the figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

TridonicAtco GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark sought:

Figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard for goods in Classes 9 and 11 – Application No W874778

Decision of the examiner:

Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal dismissed


Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the application;

2.

Orders TridonicAtco & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Top