Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:487
Date: 2009-12-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: United Kingdom

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Earle Beauty v OHIM (SUPERSKIN) (Case T-486/08) Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark SUPERSKIN – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) 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 goods – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 27, 37-44, 50) Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1656/2007‑4), concerning registration of the word sign SUPERSKIN as a Community trade mark. Information relating to the case Applicant for the Community trade mark: Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd Community trade mark sought: Word mark SUPERSKIN for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 – Application No 5967856 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed Operative part: 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 15 September 2008 (Case R 1656/2007‑4), in respect of perfumes, nail and hair care preparations, antiperspirants, deodorants, dentifrice, hair colouring preparations, hair spray, eyecare preparations, nail varnish, nail varnish remover and artificial nails, in Class 3, and hygienic care and cosmetic treatments for the hair, in Class 44; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay half of OHIM’s costs, and OHIM to bear the other half of its costs.