Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:30
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 Action' 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) 
II - 379 
SUMMARY — CASE T-135/99 
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)(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 Action', 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 known to the public 
under the expression 'action film'. In 
addition, the term 'Cine Action' may 
enable the public concerned to estab­
lish immediately and without further 
reflection a concrete and direct rela­
tionship with the majority of the ser­
vices in question, particularly those 
which may concretely and directly 
concern the 'action film' product or 
the production or transmission of the 
latter. Therefore, in respect of those 
latter services and of the 'action film' 
product, registration of the term 'Cine 
Action' may be refused on the basis of 
Art icle 7(1)(c) of Regu la t ion 
No 40/94. 
As regards registration of that same 
term 'Cine Action', 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 action films — is too vague 
and indeterminate to confer on that 
term a descriptive character in relation 
to those services. Therefore, in respect 
II - 380 
TAURUS-FILM v OHIM (CINE ACTION) 
of those latter services, registration of 
the term 'Cine Action' cannot be 
refused pursuant 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-381