- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-380/09: Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Bianchin v OHIM — Grotto (GASOLINE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0380
62009TN0380
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
21.11.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/60
(Case T-380/09)
2009/C 282/111
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Luciano Bianchin (Asolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grotto SpA (Chiuppano, Italy)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of 13 July 2009 on all the grounds set out in the application and order OHIM to pay the costs;
—order the production of the documents filed in Case Nos B 630410, 000002087/C and R1455/2008-2.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: ‘GASOLINE’ (application for registration No 2 901 064) for goods in Class 9.
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: GROTTO S.p.A.
Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Italian figurative mark composed of the word element ‘GAS (keep it simple)’ (registration Nos 959 343 and 876 729) for, inter alia, goods in Class 9, and figurative Community trade mark composed of the word element ‘GAS’ (No 2 867 463) for goods in Class 9.
Decision of the Cancellation Division: granted the application and declared that the registration of the Community trade mark in question was invalid.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the appeal.
Pleas in law: Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 are wholly inadequate.