CELEX: C2005/155/31
Language: en
Date: 2005-06-25 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark CELLTECH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

25.6.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 155/16
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Word mark CELLTECH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 155/31)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-260/03: Celltech R&D Ltd, established in Slough, Berkshire (United Kingdom), represented by D. Alexander, barrister, and N. Jenkins, solicitor, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and A. Folliard-Monguiral) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark CELLTECH, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.