- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-200/08: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Interflon v OHIM — Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community trade mark FOODLUBE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TA0200
62008TA0200
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 317/26
(Case T-200/08) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark FOODLUBE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 317/46
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Interflon BV (Rosendaal, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Wertwijn, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (Glenview, Illinois, United States)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;
2.Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.