Log in


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
FRIDAY, 30 MAY 2014
EXACT in General Court

In Case T-228/13, NIIT Technologies Ltd applied for registration of the word mark EXACT in Classes 9, 16 and 42 related to mainly various IT goods and services.

OHIM’s examiners rejected the application for the entire classes 9 and 42, and class 16 in part, holding that for the products and services at issue , the mark applied for is descriptive and devoid of distinctive character, at least for English-speaking consumers, among which are both professionals and the general public. These consumers understand the word " exact" , which is not accompanied by additional creative or unusual items, as referring to the idea of ​​precision and accuracy and thus as providing direct and immediate information on the quality products and services at issue . Consumers will choose those goods or services on the basis of quality conferred on them, run or made ​​with all the precision and accuracy required . In particular, as regards the goods in Class 9 and services in Class 42, the precision and accuracy are inherent in their technical , scientific or computer-related ./blogs/class46/image.asp?id=3855

The General Court confirmed the BoA’s decision. Further, it rejected the applicant’s arguments invoking earlier similar registered trademarks, regarding a violation of fair trial and equal treatment holding that according to well-established case-law, Article 6 of the ECHR is not applicable to the proceedings before the Boards of appeal, which is administrative, and not judicial. Moreover, the GC rejected the argument regarding the violation of Article 56 TFEU, on an alleged limitation on free competition. On the contrary, OHIM’s role is to verify that a sign complies with the CTMR, and aims at guaranteeing free competition by avoiding granting monopolies on words.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 15.04
Tags: General Court, absolute grounds, exact, IT,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3725
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment

MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.

The Class 46 Archive








+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox