Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — Hopf v OHIM (Clampflex)

(Case T-171/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Champflex — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-27)

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 — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Clampflex (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 28-43, 46-50, 54-56)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Duty to state reasons for the refusal to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 75) (see paras 44, 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Champflex as a Community trade mark.

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 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘syringes’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Mr Hans-Jürgen Hopf to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of OHIM, and orders OHIM to bear half of its own costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — Hopf v OHIM (Clampflex)

(Case T-171/11)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Champflex — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-27)

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 — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark Clampflex (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see paras 28-43, 46-50, 54-56)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Duty to state reasons for the refusal to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c) and 75) (see paras 44, 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Champflex as a Community trade mark.

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 19 January 2011 (Case R 1514/2010-4) in so far as it concerns the goods ‘syringes’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;