Case C-212/07 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2007 by Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Ld a against the judgment delivered on 15 February 2007 in Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), appeal, cosmetics industry, service, toiletries, trade-mark law

C 155/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

expressly distinguishes between these two situations and limits
the exclusion of compensation in relation to those persons
(including the driver) in the vehicle that caused the damage or
injury.

Appeal brought on 23 April 2007 by Indorata-Serviços e
Gestão, Lda against the judgment delivered on 15 February
2007 in Case T-204/04 Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs)

(Case C-212/07 P)

(2007/C 155/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant:
T. Wallentin, Rechtsanwalt)

Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda

(represented by:

the intended purpose of the goods in Class 22 to the relevant
public, and therefore in its entirety also shows a sufficiently
direct and genuine link to the goods concerned in Class 22, the
Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the provi-
sion at issue. In addition, HAIRTRANSFER cannot be descriptive
in respect of the rejected goods per se, since an ‘exclusively
descriptive’ function of goods is not appropriate for services (!)

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant relies on breach of
the principle of equal
treatment. Signs which are definitely
similar to the set of words at issue have been the subject of deci-
sions of OHIM on the registration of Community trade marks.
The appellant stated in the proceedings before the Court of First
Instance that the sign in the present case has distinctive char-
acter also on account of
the settled practice of OHIM, the
Austrian Patent Office and the Patent Offices of numerous
Member States.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant relies on
breach of general principles of EC law. The judgement of the
Court of First Instance under appeal infringes the requirement
of objectivity and the principle of coherence in decision-making,
inasmuch as within one and the same application for a Com-
munity trade mark registration a distinction is made which
cannot be objectively applied. It is quite evident that ‘hair thick-
ening’ in Class 44 and rejected by the Office is included in hair
lengthening. Registration of the sign HAIRTRANSFER in respect
of ‘hair lengthening’ and rejection in respect of ‘hair thickening’
is therefore objectively unjustified.

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(1) OJ C 82 of 14.4.2007, p. 32.

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

15 February 2007 in Case T-204/04 (1);

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant argues four grounds in support of
against the above judgment of the Court of First Instance.

its appeal

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant relies on infringe-
ment of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. Contrary to the
observations of the Court, the term HAIRTRANSFER is capable
of registration since its fanciful nature gives it distinctive char-
acter and is therefore capable of distinguishing the goods and
services of the appellant from those of other undertakings.

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2007 —
und
Verlag

Sächsisches Druck-

Schawe GmbH v

ruling

a

Verlagshaus AG

(Case C-215/07)

(2007/C 155/23)

Language of the case: German

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant relies on infringe-
ment of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. By its finding
that the sign HAIRTRANSFER in respect of the goods applied
for in Class 8 has a sufficiently direct and genuine link to the
goods concerned and that the sign HAIRTRANSFER indicates

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof