- 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
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010. # Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Bill Burkart and Andreas Herden v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Refusal to register - Word mark Patentconsult - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. # Case C-80/09 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2010:62
62009CO0080
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 C‑80/09 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(c) – Refusal to register – Word mark Patentconsult – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 Mergel and Others v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007, dismissing the action against the decision of the examiner to refuse the registration of the Community word mark ‘Patentconsult’ for the goods and services within Classes 35, 41 and 42 – Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services concerned.
Operative part:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.Mergel, Kampfenkel, Bill and Herden are ordered to pay the costs.