Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:243
Date: 2001-10-03
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. 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 a product — 'New 
Born Baby' 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1) (c)) 
II - 2927 
SUMMARY — CASE T-140/00 
2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark, Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Non-
descriptive sign — Finding that a sign lacks any fanciful element insufficient to 
deprive the sign of distinctiveness 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) 
1. The registration as a Community trade 
mark of the words 'New Born Baby', 
for 'dolls to play with and accessories 
for such dolls in the form of playthings' 
does not designate the quality, intended 
purpose or any other characteristic of 
those goods. 
First of all, as to dolls to play with, 
even if the sign 'New Born Baby' could 
be regarded as descriptive of that 
which the dolls represent, this would 
not be sufficient to prove that the sign 
in question is descriptive of the dolls 
themselves. It cannot be considered to 
be so, other than in so far as the 
persons targeted, when making their 
purchasing decision, conflate the toy 
and what it represents. With regard, 
secondly, to accessories for dolls in the 
form of playthings, these do not repre­
sent new-born babies but other items. 
Nor, further, does the sign contain a 
descriptive indication of the intended 
purpose of the goods because the 
public targeted does not perceive a 
direct and specific link between the 
sign and those goods. 
Registration may therefore not be 
refused under Article 7(1)(c) of Regu­
lation No 40/94. 
(see paras 24-33) 
1. Where a sign in respect of which 
registration is applied for is found to 
be non-descriptive, the mere fact that a 
Board of Appeal has found that the 
sign has 'no fanciful element at all' 
cannot mean that it lacks distinctive­
ness. 
(see paras 39, 41) 
II - 2928