Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2015 —
Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)
(Case T‑223/14)
Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VENT ROLL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras. 19-22)
2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark composed of several elements — Taking into account the overall perception of the mark by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 24)
3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark VENT ROLL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 41)
4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 75) (see paras 34, 35)
5. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — No provision to the contrary (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2)) (see para. 48)
6. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision of a unit of the Office ruling at first instance and referred to the Board of Appeal — Functional continuity between those two bodies — Examination of the appeal by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 64(1)) (see para. 49)
7. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1)) (see paras 56-58)
Re:
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2014 (Case R 2156/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wolfram Schürmann and Ewald Dörken AG. |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders Ewald Dörken AG to pay the costs. |