- 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-171/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Hopf v OHIM (Champflex) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Champflex — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TA0171
62011TA0171
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
26.1.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 26/42
(Case T-171/11)(1)
(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Champflex - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
2013/C 26/81
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Hans-Jürgen Hopf (Zirndorf, Germany) (represented by: V. Mensing, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Champflex as a Community trade mark.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘syringes’;
2.Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.Orders Mr Hans-Jürgen Hopf to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of OHIM, and orders OHIM to bear half of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.