Judgment_paragraph 17 · Europig SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-207/06)

17The applicant concludes from this that the mark EUROPIG, taken as a whole, does not have a precise, constant and immediate meaning for the English-speaking public and, consequently, cannot be considered to be descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. On the contrary, that mark may be interpreted in several ways. However, it is clear from the case-law that, pursuant to this provision, registration can only be refused for signs that enable the public immediately and without further reflection to detect the description of one of the characteristics of the goods in question (Case T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-417; Case T-359/99 DKV v OHIM (EuroHealth) [2001] ECR II-1645, and Case T-334/03 Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS v OHIM (EUROPREMIUM) [2005] ECR II-65). The Court has also made it clear that descriptiveness must be determined not only in relation to each word composing the mark but also in relation to the whole which they form (Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251, paragraph 40).

Europig SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-207/06)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections