Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 - Vuitton Malletier v OHIM - Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device)
(Case T-237/10)
(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Friis Group International ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Friis Group International Aps and Louis Vuitton Malletier
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) in so far as it declared Community trade mark number 3 693 116 invalid for 'Jewellery, including rings, keyrings, buckles and earrings, cuff links, bracelets, trinkets, brooches, necklaces, ties pins, ornaments, medallions; horological and chronometric instruments and apparatus, including watches, watchcases, alarm clocks; nutcrackers in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith, candlesticks in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith' in Class 14 and 'leather and imitations of leather' and 'umbrellas' in Class 18;
2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3. Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier, Friis Group International ApS and OHIM to each bear the costs they have incurred in the course of the proceeding before the General Court.
____________1 - OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.