In judgment T-310/08, the General Court confirmed that the expression EXECUTIVE EDITION lacks distinctive character for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11. The Court specified that the Applicant Bosh itself admitted that the goods being all general household appliances, the general motivation of the Board could apply to the whole classes.

Given the common practice in trade (for cars, watches, etc.) and in advertisement to use such promotional message, this sign will be considered as a reference to a range of special, exclusive and higher quality products, unable to identify the source of the goods, conceived for particularly demanding consumers. The Board mentioned that 'Executive' qualifies the quality of 'edition' so it will be seen as a mere reference to the nature or charactaristics of the product.

Despite its vague reference to an executive person, it will be understood as a better or luxury version of standard products, which quality is aimed to a more demanding and sapient consumer such as for executives.

The court rejected the Appellant’s arguments that the term 'executive' could be used as an adjective (executing), substantive (executive power) and thus even if considered a laudatory sign, it would require a certain effort of interpretation, therefore fulfilling the minimum degree of distinctiveness. As to Bosh claiming the OHIM had registered trademarks like 'Executive Agenda' or 'Executive sofware', the Court dismissed it quoting “none can invoke to its advantage, an illegality committed for another” and that every CTM case must be decided according to the facts.