8.6.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/10

—

(Case C-126/13 P)

2013/C 164/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/1, in so far as the General Court found that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) did not infringe Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in its decision of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1);

—annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in so far as, by that decision, the Board partially rejected the registration of the mark ecoDoor on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

in the alternative

—refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

—order OHIM to pay of the costs of both instances.

Grounds of Appeal and main arguments1

This appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11, by which the General Court rejected the action brought by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in which the application for registration of the mark ecoDoor was partially rejected on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

The appellant basis its appeal on the following ground of appeal:

It claims that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 has been infringed since the mark ecoDoor — which is not at all descriptive of the goods rejected by OHM, but, at best, only of part of those goods, namely a door — can be regarded as descriptive of the relevant goods only if the relevant part is so important for the goods that it would be automatically associated, in trade, with them. This is the case only where, in the eyes of consumers, the relevant part plays a fundamental role in the goods. This is not the case for a door which forms part of the goods applied for, with the result that registration cannot be precluded on the basis of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

* * *

Language of the case: German