Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:31
Date: 2001-01-31
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second 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 — Assessment in relation to the goods or 
services for which registration applied for 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b) and (c)) 
2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks which consist exclusively of 
signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product — 
Term 'Cine Comedy' 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) 
II - 397 
SUMMARY — CASE T-136/99 
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade 
mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character of sign — None — 
Finding of no minimal touch of imagination not sufficient to negate the distinctiveness 
of the sign 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) 
1. The absolute grounds for refusal to 
register a trade mark set out in Arti­
cle 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 
No 40/94 on the Community trade 
mark, which are, respectively, the 
absence of distinctive character and 
the descriptive character of the sign, 
can be assessed only in relation to the 
goods or services in respect of which 
registration has been applied for. 
(see para. 25) 
2. As regards registration of the term 
'Cine Comedy', applied for in respect 
of certain products and services con­
nected with cinema operation, the 
production of television programmes 
and television distribution, that term, 
formed by the mere juxtaposition of 
those two words, may serve to desig­
nate the product 'comedy in film form'. 
In addition, the term 'Cine Comedy' 
may enable the public concerned to 
establish immediately and without fur­
ther reflection a concrete and direct 
relationship with the majority of the 
services in question, particularly those 
which may concretely and directly 
concern the product 'comedy in film 
form' or the production or transmis­
sion of the latter. Therefore, in respect 
of those latter services and of the 
'comedy in film form' product, regis­
tration of the term 'Cine Comedy' may 
be refused on the basis of Arti­
cle 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. 
As regards registration of that same 
term 'Cine Comedy', applied for in 
respect of categories of services which 
envisage the supply of other services, 
particularly technical, legal, manage­
ment or organisational services, in 
connection with cinema operation, the 
production of television programmes 
and television, that term does not 
enable the public concerned to estab­
lish immediately and without further 
reflection the description of one of 
their characteristics. The possible rela­
tionship between that term and those 
technical, legal, management or orga­
nisational services — assuming that, 
in particular cases, they were directed 
towards comedies in the form of 
films — is too vague and indetermi­
nate to confer on that term a descrip­
tive character in relation to those 
services. Therefore, in respect of those 
latter services, registration of the term 
'Cine Comedy' cannot.be refused pur­
II - 398 
TAURUS-FILM v OHIM (CINE COMEDY) 
suant to Article 7(1 )(c) of Regulation 
No 40/94. 
(see paras 23, 26 to 29, 31) 
3. Where a sign, registration of which has 
been applied for, has been regarded as 
not being descriptive, lack of distinc­
tiveness cannot result from the mere 
finding by an appeal board that the 
sign lacks a 'minimum amount of 
imagination'. 
(see para. 31) 
II - 399