This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/074/51
Case T-462/05: Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM
Case T-462/05: Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM
Case T-462/05: Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM
SL C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 27–27
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.3.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 74/27 |
Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM
(Case T-462/05)
(2006/C 74/51)
Language of the case:English
Parties
Applicant: Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha (Aichi-Ken, Japan) [represented by: J. F. Wachinger, lawyer]
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void and to allow the registration of the word mark application No. 003157492 ‘IFS’ for the goods ‘steering and power steering, both for vehicles and parts therefor, excluding independent front suspension’ in the international class 12, referring to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, |
|
— |
or, in the alternative, declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void, to remand the case to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for reconsideration, and for the issuance of a new decision, |
|
— |
impose the costs of the proceedings on the defendant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IFS’ for goods in class 12 — application No 3 157 492
Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the designated goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because of amongst others a wrongful definition of the relevant public and an erroneous assumption of descriptive meaning.