- 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-294/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — CBp Carbon Industries v OHIM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0294
62010TN0294
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
25.9.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/17
(Case T-294/10)
()
2010/C 260/23
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: CBp Carbon Industries, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: J. Fish, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
—The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the concerned word mark in relation to the relevant goods.
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CARBON GREEN’ for goods in class 17 — Community trade mark application No 973531
Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the concerned word mark in relation to the relevant goods.
By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the concerned word mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods in question; (ii) on the one hand correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised, yet, on the other failed to establish facts of its own motion that showed the mark was descriptive to such public; and (iii) failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders would wish to use the sign in future.