Tweet
TDI- Turbo Diesel Injection ; Turbo Direct Injection
Регистрирана търговска марка:
Модификацията, обозначена с TDI показва употреба на двигател с впръскване с "дюзо-помпа"
TDI се отличава с по-голямо максимално налягане на турбокомпресора (1,6 бар)
Така мисля аз.
Регистрирана търговска марка:
On 3 December 2003, the Court of First Instance (CFI) delivered its appeal judgment in Audi v OHIM, Case T-16/02.
The issue in this case is the review by the CFI over the refusal by OHIM to register ‘TDI’ as a trade mark, on the ground that the mark was considered to be devoid of any distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) and descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.
In 1996 Audi filed an application before OHIM to register the word mark ‘TDI’. ‘TDI’ is a common abbreviation used in the automobile industry; its common meanings are ‘Turbo Diesel Injection’ or ‘Turbo Direct Injection’. Examiners from OHIM estimated the word mark was devoid of any distinctive character and consequently refused the application.
In a decision on the 8 November 2000, the appeal made by Audi was dismissed on the ground that the mark was descriptive and then in May 2002 Audi brought an action before the CFI to revert the decision.
The Court held that signs and denominations used to mention characteristics of goods and services must remain within the public domain. The Court noted that there was a direct link between the word mark ‘TDI’ and the categories of goods and services for the protection which were intended to be used. The Court also considered irrelevant the argument that ‘TDI’ may have two different meanings to revert the decision, remarking that the use of the combination of letters as ‘TDI’ is an extended practice in the automobile industry. The Court also dismissed the assertion that the mark has become distinctive through its use as a Community trade mark, since the evidence of Audi only related to one single member, Germany.
In relation to the new evidence brought by AUDI about distinctiveness, the Court recalled the purpose of this procedure of appeal was to evaluate the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal and not to re-open the case, and refused the evidence.
Finally the Court noted that, although the Board of Appeal had failed to provide the reason for its decision and recalled that it was a duty of the body, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 40/94 reasons must be given for decision adopted by OHIM. However, this failure was not enough of a reason to annul the decision of the OHIM.
The Court remarked that the purpose of the case was to assess the legality of the procedure undertaken before OHIM and not to reopen the case as such. There is also the finding that to assess if a trade mark becomes distinctive through use, the evidence must be related to the whole Community area and not only to a single Member State. Finally, all evidence needs to be brought before the first hearing as subsequent appeals act as a re-hearing and not a new hearing with fresh evidence.
The issue in this case is the review by the CFI over the refusal by OHIM to register ‘TDI’ as a trade mark, on the ground that the mark was considered to be devoid of any distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) and descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.
In 1996 Audi filed an application before OHIM to register the word mark ‘TDI’. ‘TDI’ is a common abbreviation used in the automobile industry; its common meanings are ‘Turbo Diesel Injection’ or ‘Turbo Direct Injection’. Examiners from OHIM estimated the word mark was devoid of any distinctive character and consequently refused the application.
In a decision on the 8 November 2000, the appeal made by Audi was dismissed on the ground that the mark was descriptive and then in May 2002 Audi brought an action before the CFI to revert the decision.
The Court held that signs and denominations used to mention characteristics of goods and services must remain within the public domain. The Court noted that there was a direct link between the word mark ‘TDI’ and the categories of goods and services for the protection which were intended to be used. The Court also considered irrelevant the argument that ‘TDI’ may have two different meanings to revert the decision, remarking that the use of the combination of letters as ‘TDI’ is an extended practice in the automobile industry. The Court also dismissed the assertion that the mark has become distinctive through its use as a Community trade mark, since the evidence of Audi only related to one single member, Germany.
In relation to the new evidence brought by AUDI about distinctiveness, the Court recalled the purpose of this procedure of appeal was to evaluate the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal and not to re-open the case, and refused the evidence.
Finally the Court noted that, although the Board of Appeal had failed to provide the reason for its decision and recalled that it was a duty of the body, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 40/94 reasons must be given for decision adopted by OHIM. However, this failure was not enough of a reason to annul the decision of the OHIM.
The Court remarked that the purpose of the case was to assess the legality of the procedure undertaken before OHIM and not to reopen the case as such. There is also the finding that to assess if a trade mark becomes distinctive through use, the evidence must be related to the whole Community area and not only to a single Member State. Finally, all evidence needs to be brought before the first hearing as subsequent appeals act as a re-hearing and not a new hearing with fresh evidence.
TDI се отличава с по-голямо максимално налягане на турбокомпресора (1,6 бар)
Така мисля аз.
демек всички са Injection 
и какво ще рече Turbo Direct Injection 
червено И ще рече едно червено Т ще тече друго 
Comment