Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-289/02: Telepharmacy Solutions Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Observance of the rights of defence)
Date: 2004-09-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), automatic vending machine, pharmaceutical product, storage, trade-mark law

C 239/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.9.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Word mark ‘bestpartner’ —
Absolute grounds for refusing registration — Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Mark devoid of
distinctive character — Descriptive mark)

(2004/C 239/40)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG, established
in Heidelberg (Germany), represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer,
against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — action
brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 26 June 2002 (Case R 206/2002-3) refusing to
register the word mark ‘bestpartner’ — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,
A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Admin-
istrator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment in which
it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 June 2004

Case

T-281/02: Norma

in
Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb
GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’
— Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character —
Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2004/C 239/41)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-281/02: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co.
KG, established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by S.
Rojahn and S. Freytag, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisa-
tion in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),
(Agent: D. Schennen) — action brought against the decision of

the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3
July 2002 (Case R 239/2002-3) concerning the registration of
the word mark ‘Mehr für Ihr Geld’ as a Community trade mark
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30
June 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-289/02: Telepharmacy Solutions Inc. v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Word mark TELEPHARMACY
SOLUTIONS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article
7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Observance of the
rights of defence)

(2004/C 239/42)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-289/02: Telepharmacy Solutions Inc., established in
North Billerica, Massachusetts (United States), represented by R.
Davis, barrister, and M. Medyckyj, solicitor, v Office for Harmo-
nisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) (Agent: S. Bonne) — action brought against the deci-
sion of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2002
(Case R 108/2001-4), concerning registration of the word sign
TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark —
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H.
Judges; B. Pastor,
Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8
July 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.