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
2010/C 51/80
Language of the case: English
Applicant(s): Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—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.
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.