CELEX: 62009TA0397
Language: en
Date: 2011-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-397/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — Prinz von Hannover v OHIM (Representation of a coat of arms) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a coat of arms — Absolute ground for refusal — Imitation from a heraldic point of view of the symbol of a State — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention)

9.7.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 204/21
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — Prinz von Hannover v OHIM (Representation of a coat of arms)
   (Case T-397/09) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a coat of arms - Absolute ground for refusal - Imitation from a heraldic point of view of the symbol of a State - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention)
   2011/C 204/36
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: R. Stötzel and J. Hilger, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 1361/2008-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing the coat of arms of the house of Hanover.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.