C-90/11 and C-91/11

Strigl and Others

These joined cases raise the following question which has been sent to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Is the ground for refusal under Article 3(1)(b) and/or (c) of the directive also applicable to a word sign which consists of a descriptive word combination and a non-descriptive letter sequence, if the trade perceives the letter sequence as an abbreviation of the descriptive words because it reproduces their initial letters, and the trade mark as a whole can thus be construed as a combination of mutually explanatory descriptive indications or abbreviations?