- 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 C-429/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product — Orange colouring of the toe of a sock — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CB0429
62010CB0429
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
27.8.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/11
(Case C-429/10 P) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Appeals - Community trade mark - Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product - Orange colouring of the toe of a sock - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b))
2011/C 252/20
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the sign consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 25 — Distinctive character of a sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product
Operative part of the order
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.X Technology Swiss GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.