CELEX: 62009CO0080
Language: en
Date: 2010-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010. # Volker Mergel, Klaus Kampfenkel, Bill Burkart and Andreas Herden v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Refusal to register - Word mark Patentconsult - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. # Case C-80/09 P.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2010 – Mergel and Others v OHIM
      (Case C‑80/09 P)
      Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(c) – Refusal to register – Word mark Patentconsult – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded
      1.                     Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
            of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
            (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 25)
      2.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed
            exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods –Definition (Council Regulation
            No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 37)
      Re: 
      
         Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2008 in Case T-335/07 
               Mergel and Others
                v 
               OHIM
               , by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007,
                  dismissing the action against the decision of the examiner to refuse the registration of the Community word mark ‘Patentconsult’
                  for the goods and services within Classes 35, 41 and 42 – Distinctive character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs
                  or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services concerned.
               
            Operative part: 
      
         
                  1.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	The appeal is dismissed.
               
            
         
                  2.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	Mergel, Kampfenkel, Bill and Herden are ordered to pay the costs.