CELEX: C2004/262/66
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-283/04: Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

23.10.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/34
            
         Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   (Case T-283/04)
   (2004/C 262/66)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L., established in Luxembourg, represented by R. Delorey, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul and alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office in so far as it held that the mark applied for under No 2 101 277 was devoid of distinctive character throughout the Community in relation to ‘rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper’ and, when giving a new ruling, hold that the mark refused is distinctive.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   
               Community trade mark sought:
            
            
               Three-dimensional mark in the form of a design for kitchen towels.
            
         
               Goods or services:
            
            
               Goods in Class 16 (rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper) — Application No 2 101 277.
            
         
               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:
            
            
               Refusal to register by the examiner.
            
         
               Decision of the Board of Appeal:
            
            
               Dismissal of the appeal.
            
         
               Pleas in law:
            
            
               The contested decision infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
               The sign is clearly capable of being represented graphically for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) and Article 4 of the Regulation.
               The sign is not descriptive or customary and does not consist of a shape resulting from the natureof the goods.
               The sign is sufficiently distinctive to satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation.