- 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
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2009. # Korsch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PharmaResearch - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application. # Case T-464/07.
ECLI:EU:T:2009:207
62007TJ0464
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
(Case T-464/07)
Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark PharmaResearch – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application
Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 30, 37, 42)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2007 (Case R 924/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign PharmaResearch as a Community trade mark.
Information relating to the case
Applicant for the Community trade mark:
Community trade mark sought:
Word mark ‘PharmaResearch’ for goods and services in Class 9 – Application No 5309836
Decision of the Examiner:
Registration refused
Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Appeal dismissed
Operative part
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Korsch AG to pay the costs.