Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/9 |

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Alfred Strigl v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11)

(Joined Cases C-90/11 and C-91/11)[(1)](#ntr1-C_2012133EN.01000902-E0001)

(Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Grounds for refusal or invalidity - Verbal expressions which consist of a word combination and a sequence of letters identical to the initial letters of those words - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Assessment criteria)

2012/C 133/15

Language of the cases: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alfred Strigl (C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH (C-91/11)

Defendants: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version) ([OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:2008:299:TOC)) — Distinctive character of a word mark composed of a combination of descriptive words and a sequence of non-descriptive letters that are identical to the initial letters of those words

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a word mark which consists of the juxtaposition of a descriptive word combination and a letter sequence which is non-descriptive in itself, if the relevant public perceives that sequence as being an abbreviation of that word combination by reason of the fact that it reproduces the first letter of each word of that combination, and that the mark in question, considered as a whole, can thus be understood as a combination of descriptive indications or abbreviations which is therefore devoid of distinctive character.

---

[Top](#document1)