- 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-507/08: Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0507
62008TN0507
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
24.1.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 19/34
(Case T-507/08)
(2009/C 19/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2008 in case R 1012/2007-2 and remit the application for a declaration of invalidity to the OHIM to allow it to proceed, and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘16PF’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 892 652
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) should have found on the evidence before it that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of any distinctive character; (ii) failed to apply the correct legal test and failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it; and (iii) should have found on the evidence before it that the application for the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was made in bad faith.