CELEX: 62005TA0458
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-458/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TEK — Subject-matter of the proceedings — Observance of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

12.1.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 8/13
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK)
   (Case T-458/05) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TEK - Subject-matter of the proceedings - Observance of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 8/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil-Oberhofen, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the Court of First Instance: Wuppermann AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Huisken, and subsequently by I. Friedhoff, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 October 2005 (Case R 1063/2004-2), as rectified on 16 November 2005, relating to invalidity proceedings between Wuppermann AG and Tegometall International AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.