EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0523
Case T-523/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
Case T-523/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
Case T-523/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
OJ C 51, 27.2.2010, p. 44–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.2.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/44 |
Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
(Case T-523/09)
2010/C 51/80
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant(s): Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2; |
— |
In the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2, to state that the Community trade mark concerned possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ for goods in class 9
Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned was not eligible for registration due to the fact that it is purportedly devoid of any distinctive character.