CELEX: C2002/003/45
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-118/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

5.1.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 3/27
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 19 September 2001                                                       of 19 September 2001
in Case T-118/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office                        in Case T-119/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                     (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                         machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                                             (EC) No 40/94)
                           (2002/C 3/45)                                                              (2002/C 3/46)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-118/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in                 In Case T-119/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by                Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address               C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation                for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                    in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)                (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)
— application brought against the decision of the First Board              — application brought against the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 March 2000 (Case                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 February 2000 (Case
R-516/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on                      R-519/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
7 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),               3 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,             composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:                        given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                  (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.