CELEX: 62011TN0426
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-426/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)

24.9.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/46
            
         Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE)
   (Case T-426/11)
   2011/C 282/84
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (St. Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1294/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 41, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8246704
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application for a Community trade mark, for part of the goods and services
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Examination Division for further prosecution
   
      Pleas in law: The applicant puts forward four pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 75 and 7(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not explicitly decided on Article 7(1)(a) of CTMR, but did, nevertheless, consider that the mark ‘MÉDITATION TRANSCENDANTALE’ is generic; (ii) infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark is devoid of any distinctive character; (iii) infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly concluded that the mark consists exclusively of indications, which may serve, in trade, to designate characteristics of the goods or services, for which applicant filed the mark; and (iv) infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided that the mark has not become distinctive in relation to the goods or services, for which registration is requested in consequence of the use, which has been made of it.