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 62010TJ0235

    Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011.
    Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
    Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional mark - Shape of a watch with jagged edges - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
    Case T-235/10.

    European Court Reports 2011 II-00214*

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2011:331





    Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 – Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with jagged edges)

    (Case T-235/10)

    Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional mark – Shape of a watch with jagged edges – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

    Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35-36)

    Re:

    ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2011 (Case R 0942/2009‑1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch as a Community trade mark.

    Operative part

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Timehouse GmbH to pay the costs.

    Top