76In any event, it should be noted that the requirement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 40/94, namely that the trade mark must be contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality, is not met in the present case. As OHIM rightly pointed out in its defence, that provision does not cover the situation in which the trade mark applicant acts in bad faith. An overall reading of the various subparagraphs of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94 shows that they refer to the intrinsic qualities of the mark claimed and not to circumstances relating to the conduct of the person applying for the trade mark, such as those relied on by the applicant in the present case.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.