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
(Case T-670/15) (1)
((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark OSHO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No adverse effect on public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 402/30)
Language of the case: German
Applicant: Osho Lotus Commune eV (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Ivanov and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Osho International Foundation (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2015 (Case R 1997/2014-4), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Osho Lotus Commune and Osho International Foundation.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Osho Lotus Commune eV to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
3.Orders Osho International Foundation to bear its own costs.
OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.