CELEX: 62009TA0031
Language: en
Date: 2010-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-31/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2010 — Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

1.5.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/44
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2010 — Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES)
   (Case T-31/09) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 113/70
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Baid SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Grasset, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2008 (Case R 963/2008-1), concerning an application to register the word sign LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES as a Community trade mark
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Baid SARL to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.