0 of 1 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You must first complete the following:
Time has elapsed
Complete the sentences with one of the given verbs IN THE APPROPRIATE FORM. Sometimes more than one option is possible without a change in meaning but, to limit the choice, choose the equivalent of the Polish word(s) in brackets. The Polish translation will give you a hint about the tense and form of the verb to use
ARGUE – CLAIM – DEMONSTRATE – MAINTAIN – NOTE – PROVE – REFER TO – SUPPORT – STATE
1. The applicant (dowodzi, utrzymuje) , in essence, that the CTM is descriptive and non-distinctive in relation to the contested goods.
2. The applicant (twierdzi, utrzymuje) that when seen in connection with deodorants and anti-perspirants, the sign makes it immediately clear that these goods have a stress balancing and protective effect.
3. In support of its observations, the applicant (odnosi się, nawiązuje do) a previous decision of the Office that refused on grounds of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR, to register the word ‘STRESS PROTECT’ for cosmetics including deodorants and anti-perspirant.
4. In response to the arguments put forward by the applicant, the CTM proprietor (twierdzi, utrzymuje) that the CTM does not carry any immediate message about the designated goods.
5. However, the Cancellation Division (zauważa, zwraca uwagę) that this sign is not suitable to describe the goods in question, either directly or by designating one of their essential characteristics.
6. In that respect the applicant (nie dowiódł, nie udowodnił) that, at the date of filing of the CTM application, the sign ‘STRESS DEFENCE’ was used or perceived by the relevant public in a descriptive way in relation to the contested goods in Class 3.
7. The CTM proprietor has not sufficiently (wykazał, dowiódł słuszności) that either consumers or sellers would refer to deodorants as products or substances defending from stress.
8. This practice has been fully (wsparta) by the General Court which (stwierdził, oświadczył) that it is settled case-law that the legality of decisions is to be assessed purely by reference to the CTMR, and not the Office’s practice in earlier decisions (judgment of 30/06/2004, T-281/02, „Mehr fur Ihr Geld’).