Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004. MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). Community trade mark - Word mark bestpartner - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Mark devoid of distinctive character - Descriptive mark. Case T-270/02.

Judgment // 08/07/2004 // 3 min read
bookmark 4 citations

Case T-270/02

MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark – Word mark ‘bestpartner’ – Absolute grounds for refusing registration – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Mark devoid of distinctive character – Descriptive mark)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 8 July 2004

Summary of the Judgment

  1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature –Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1), 130(1), and 132(1))

  1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character – Mark ‘bestpartner’

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

  1. Under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which is applicable in intellectual property matters by virtue of Article 130(1) and Article 132(1) of those rules, although specific points in the body of the application can be supported and completed by references to specific passages in the documents attached, a general reference to other documents cannot compensate for the lack of essential information in the application itself which, under the aforementioned provisions, must be contained in the application itself. Accordingly, an application, in so far as it refers to documents filed by the applicant before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), is inadmissible because the general reference contained therein is not linked to a plea developed in the application.

(see para. 16)

  1. With regard to the English-speaking public in the Community, the term ‘bestpartner’, for which registration is sought for insurance, financial and Internet data-processing services in Classes 36, 38 and 42 of the Nice Agreement, is devoid of the minimum degree of distinctive character required by Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The terms ‘best’ and ‘partner’ are generic words which simply denote the quality of services supplied by an undertaking to its clients and the fact of coupling the two terms together without any graphic or semantic modification does not imbue them with any additional characteristic such as to render the sign, taken as a whole, capable for the relevant public of distinguishing the applicant’s services from those of other undertakings.

(see paras 24, 26-27)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)8 July 2004(1)

(Community trade mark – Word mark ‘bestpartner’ – Absolute grounds for refusing registration – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Mark devoid of distinctive character – Descriptive mark)

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber),

gives the following

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

Pirrung

Meij

Forwood

H. Jung J. Pirrung

Registrar

President

Trade marks