Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:151
Date: 2001-06-07
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Registration procedure;Signs of which a trade mark may consist;Marks devoid of any distinctive character;Appeals before the Boards of Appeal
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Community trade marks — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Absolute grounds for refusing registration — Marks composed exclusively of 
signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product — 
'EuroHealth' 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) 
II - 1645 
SUMMARY — CASE T-359/99 
2. Community trade marks —· Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Application for registration of a sign in respect of all the services falling 
within a single category — Refusal of application by examiner — Assessment by the 
Board of Appeal of the absolute grounds for refusal relating to those services as a whole 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7 and 38) 
3. Community trade marks — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness of the sign and 
descriptive character thereof — Independent analysis 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) 
1. So far as concerns registration of the 
word 'EuroHealth' as a Community 
trade mark in respect of services falling 
within the category of 'insurance', that 
word may serve, in the English-speak­
ing areas of the Community, to desig­
nate a specific category of insurance 
services, namely health insurance ser­
vices which can be offered at the 
European level. The word thus allows 
the relevant section of the public to 
establish immediately and without fur­
ther reflection a definite and direct 
association with the health insurance 
services which fall within the category 
of 'insurance'. Accordingly, registra­
tion of the word EuroHealth in respect 
of insurance services may be refused on 
the basis of Article 7(1 )(c) of Regula­
tion No 40/94 on the Community 
trade mark. 
As regards registration of the same 
word, EuroHealth, sought in respect of 
services falling within the category of 
'financial affairs', the association 
between the semantic content of the 
sign, that is to say 'health in Europe', 
on the one hand, and the services in 
question, on the other, is not suffi­
ciently concrete and direct to demon­
strate that that sign enables the target 
consumers to identify those services 
immediately and that it is therefore 
descriptive of such services. Accord­
ingly, the relationship between the 
word 'EuroHealth' and the financial 
services concerned is too indeterminate 
and vague to be caught by the prohibi­
tion laid down in Article 7(1 )(c) of 
Regulation No 40/94. 
(see paras 26-27, 36-37) 
2. Where registration of a sign as a 
Community trade mark is sought in 
respect of all services falling within a 
single category without distinguishing 
between them, the assessment of the 
Board of Appeal of the Office for 
Harmonisation in the Internal Market 
(trade marks and designs) which is 
called upon to hear and determine an 
appeal against the refusal, under Arti­
II - 1646 
DKV v OHIM (EUROHEALTH) 
cle 38 of Regulation No 40/94 on the 
Community trade mark, by the exam­
iner to register the sign must relate to 
those services as a whole. 
(see para. 33) 
3. Even if it were to be accepted that the 
elements capable of establishing the 
two absolute grounds of refusal to 
register a mark set out in Arti­
cle 7(1 )(b) and (c) of Regulation 
No 40/94 on the Community trade 
mark, namely lack of distinctiveness 
of the sign and descriptive character 
thereof, could overlap with each other 
to some extent, it is none the less true 
that each of those grounds has its own 
sphere of application and that they 
must, therefore, be subject to an inde­
pendent analysis. 
(see para. 48) 
II - 1647