Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2014 —
Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
(Case T‑188/13)
Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOTFALL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment
1. 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 20, 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 — Word mark NOTFALL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24, 26-30)
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 35)
4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 42)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 132/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Healing Herbs Ltd and Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Healing Herbs Ltd. |