Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) v. BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG
European Union Court of Justice
[2011] E.T.M.R. 4, Case C-265/09 (2010)
- Written by Margot Parmenter, JD
Facts
BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (BORCO) (defendant) filed an application to register the lowercase Greek letter a (a) as a community trademark (CTM) in the European Union (EU). It attempted to register the figure as a mark signifying a brand of wines, sparkling wines, and spritzers. In May 2006, the examiner denied BORCO’s application, concluding that the figure lacked the distinctive character required to register a trademark by Article 7(1)(b) of EU Regulation No. 40/94. Because the mark was an a bearing no modifications or other additions, the examiner held that potential Greek consumers would not be able to understand it as distinguishing the commercial goods listed. BORCO appealed to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (plaintiff). OHIM dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the examiner that the sign lacked a distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b). BORCO then sought an annulment of OHIM’s dismissal with the European General Court. The General Court found that OHIM had erred by concluding that a single letter could not have a distinctive character without performing a factual analysis on the specific circumstances of whether that letter was capable of distinguishing BORCO’s products from its competitors’ products in the minds of those products’ consumers. OHIM appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
