In Case T-33/15, the Mexican company Grupo Bimbo, SAB  de CV applied for EU TM (formerly known as CTM) BIMBO for goods in class 30 'Flour, bread and cereal preparations and products; products of pastry and biscuit.' The examiner of the EU IPO (former OHIM) rejected the application on the grounds that the relevant Italian- speaking consumer would interpret the word "bimbo" as an indication of the target of the products concerned, namely children. Thus, the examiner found that the sign BIMBO had a descriptive meaning that rendered him unfit to indicate the commercial origin of the products.

The applicant appealed on the grounds that "bimbo" was not the word normally used to describe a child in Italian and, therefore, it was not a typical word to describe a product or destination of a product. Italian regulations on product labeling also provide that products intended for children must have labels indicating "per the infanza" or "per bambini", but in any case not the word "bimbo". The applicant also relied on the seniority of its brand BIMBO in Italy and added that it had been registered in Switzerland, Germany and the UK. He finally noted that the Court had recognized the reputation of the brand in Spain of BIMBO in Case T-357/11 and produced evidence of worldwide ranking of the brand. .

The Board of Appeal found that according to an Italian dictionary, the word "bimbo" was neither affectionate nor familiar, but was synonymous with "bambino" or "child" in Italian. He said that the age of the Italian brand BIMBO which the applicant had relied on was not relevant, given that OHIM was not bound by decisions taken by national offices. Finally, as regards registrations of identical or similar marks (among others ABUELO, HOMBRE, MAN, WOMAN, BOY, CHICO, NENE, BABY), the examiner found that OHIM had to process applications under Regulation No 207/2009 and should not consent to the registration of a trademark simply because previously it could have been accepted by ​​mistake when instead fell within the absolute grounds for refusal. Finally, as regards Article 7, paragraph 3 of CTMR, the Board found that the evidence adduced by the applicant did not demonstrate distinctiveness acquired through use of the mark applied for in the part of the Union where it was devoid, namely Italy.

The General Court upheld the decision and found that the goods covered by the mark are able to be consumed by children or adapted to be consumed by children. Therefore  the mark would be perceived by the relevant public as clearly descriptive of characteristics of the products concerned. Moreover the mark was devoid of distinctive character according to article 7 (1) b) and c) CTMR.

see definitions of bimbo here  and here  in original version