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 62007TN0414

Case T-414/07: Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representation of a hand holding a card plus three triangles)

OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 45–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/45

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representation of a hand holding a card plus three triangles)

(Case T-414/07)

(2008/C 22/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Européene de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by P. Greffe and M. Chaminade, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

—

annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 in Case R 290/2007-1, in so far as it refused the registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42;

—

registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising a representation of a hand holding a card followed by three black triangles for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 (Application No 5 225 776)

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant states that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the elements comprising the trade mark, the registration of which was partially refused, are distinctive and arbitrary in respect of the goods and services claimed and, consequently, their combination must be also considered to be distinctive and arbitrary.

Top