Case T‑710/13
Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Tafel — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 18 September 2015
1.      Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))
2.      Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept
(Council Regulation No 207/2009 Art. 7(1)(c))
3.      Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark Tafel
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))
4.      Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept
(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b))
1.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 15)
2.      See the text of the decision.
(see paras 16-19)
3.      From the point of view of the German-speaking public, the word mark ‘Tafel’ is not descriptive, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, of services of ‘gathering, collection, transportation and distribution of essential goods, including foodstuffs, for persons in need’ falling within Class 39 of the Nice arrangement, and of ‘personal and social services rendered by others to meet individual needs’ within Class 45 of the said arrangement.
The German term ‘Tafel’ in the sense of ‘table’ does not have, in relation to the services in question, a direct and specific relationship enabling the public concerned immediately to perceive, without further thought, a description of those services. Even if those services may in some cases they may be provided at a table — inter alia services for providing food and drink — that is not necessarily the case. That assessment is without prejudice to any ruling that may be given concerning other meanings of the term ‘Tafel’ not analysed by the Board of Appeal.
(see paras 21, 31, 34, 35, 37)
4.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 44)