OHIM v Celltech (Intellectual property) [2007] EUECJ C-273/05 (19 April 2007)

OHIM v Celltech (Intellectual property) [2007] EUECJ C-273/05 (19 April 2007)

The Court held that OHIM and its Board of Appeal failed to establish that 'CELLTECH', even if understood as 'cell technology', is descriptive of the goods and services in question. The Board did not provide evidence that 'cell technology' is a well-known scientific term or that the relevant public would perceive the mark as descriptive. The assessment must consider the mark as a whole, and the mere combination of potentially descriptive elements does not suffice for refusal unless the whole is descriptive. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] EUECJ C-273/05
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Celltech R&D Ltd; Respondent/appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Registration Appeal / Appeal to Court of Justice of the European Union From Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Distinctiveness, Descriptiveness, Community Trade Mark Regulation, Appeals Procedure
Intellectual Property European Union Law Trade Marks Distinctiveness Descriptiveness Community Trade Mark Regulation Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celltech R&D Ltd

Applicant/respondent

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Registration Appeal / Appeal to Court of Justice of the European Union From Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word mark 'CELLTECH' is descriptive or devoid of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Appeal and OHIM sufficiently established that 'CELLTECH' is descriptive of the goods and services in question
  3. 3 Whether the combination of descriptive elements in a mark necessarily renders the mark descriptive

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that OHIM and its Board of Appeal failed to establish that 'CELLTECH', even if understood as 'cell technology', is descriptive of the goods and services in question. The Board did not provide evidence that 'cell technology' is a well-known scientific term or that the relevant public would perceive the mark as descriptive. The assessment must consider the mark as a whole, and the mere combination of potentially descriptive elements does not suffice for refusal unless the whole is descriptive. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • OHIM to pay the costs