Judgment_paragraph 17 · Audi AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-16/02)

17According to the applicant, the associations which the relevant public may be led to make with the different letters of which the mark applied for is composed are vague within the meaning of the judgment in Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v OHIM (EASYBANK) [2001] ECR II-1259, paragraph 31. It argues that it follows from paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment in Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251 that the absolute ground for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 is applicable only if the mark TDI, taken as a whole, is directly descriptive. In the applicant's view, that is not the case. Moreover, the applicant observes that, in Case T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-417, the Court of First Instance took the view that, as a general rule, it is sufficient that one of the components of a mark consisting of two words has a double meaning for it to be excluded that the mark taken as a whole is descriptive. Similarly, it is, the applicant argues, clear from that judgment that, where a mark consists of several components each of which has several meanings, the various combinations give rise to multiple meanings of the mark taken as a whole, which rules out the possibility that that mark may be perceived by the public as a directly descriptive indication.