(Markenrecht) EuGH vom 22.11.2011 – LG Electronics Inc ./. HABM – “DIRECT DRIVE” (T-561/10)

Der EuGH hat am gestrigen Tag eine Entscheidung bestätigt, wonach das Wortzeichen “DIRECT DRIVE” als Gemeinschaftsmarke nicht eintragungsfähig ist. Dies wurde u.a. damit begründet, dass die englische Bezeichung direct-drive sich auf alle Geräte bezieht, die direkt durch einen Motor angetrieben werden.

(“…. ‘direct drive’ referred to the concept of appliances driven directly by a motor, without an intervening belt or gearbox, thus allowing more effectiveness. Since all of the goods concerned are appliances containing motors and can be operated by a direct-drive system..”)

Es fehlt dem Zeichen damit an Unterscheidungskraft und es ist beschreibend (lack of distinctive character +descriptive sign)

Verkehrskreise (relevant public) sind Bewohner des UK und Maltas.

Die Entscheidung:

(Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

In Case T‑561/10,

LG Electronics, Inc., established in Seoul (South Korea), represented by M. Graf, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by V. Melgar, acting as Agent,

defendant,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010‑2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of O. Czúcz (Rapporteur), President, I. Labucka and D. Gratsias, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

having regard to the application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 8 December 2010,

having regard to the response lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 February 2011,

having regard to the fact that no application for a hearing was submitted by the parties within the period of one month from notification of closure of the written procedure, and having therefore decided, acting upon a report of the Judge‑Rapporteur, to give a ruling without an oral procedure, pursuant to Article 135a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 On 7 January 2010 the applicant, LG Electronics, Inc. filed an application for registration of a Community trade mark at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p.1).

2 The mark in respect of which registration was sought is the word sign DIRECT DRIVE.

3 The goods in respect of which registration…

» Vollständiger Artikel