The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Wednesday, 1 December 2004


In Case T-173/03 Geddes v OHIM, decided yesterday, the Court of First Instance denied registration to Anne Geddes' word mark sought NURSERYROOM, which she had tried to register as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 including booties, layettes, nappies, cards, plates and cups, baby clothing, plush toys and mobiles. OHIM refused the application, saying that NURSERYROOM, being made up of the descriptive terms Nursery- and –room, consisted exclusively of words that related to the description or nature of the goods themselves and that the mark was accordingly barred from registration under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 40/94). Geddes appealed to the CFI.

Applying the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice itself in Case C-191/01 P Wrigley v OHIM , the CFI concluded that the fact that the word “nurseryroom” might have a variety of meanings or connotations would not save it from being unregistrable under Article 7(1)(c) if just one of those meanings designated a characteristic of the goods or services for which registration was sought.

The IPKat says there's nothing controversial in this rather routine decision: the CFI gives the Board of Appeal's analysis a clean bill of health on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Nurseryrooms here, nurseryrhymes here

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':