- 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-326/11: Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0326
62011TN0326
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
10.9.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 269/50
(Case T-326/11)
2011/C 269/111
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by J. Bauer, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2011 in Case R 1596/2010-4;
—Refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for a decision on the question whether all due care was taken in respect of the renewal of the relevant Community trade mark BrainLAB, No 1 290 113;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark BrainLAB for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 42
Decision of the department ‘Register and associated databases’: Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum as regards the time-limit for filing the request for renewal and paying the renewal fee
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum and finding that Community trade mark No 1 290 113 had expired
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009 as it was not possible for any of the parties, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, to comply with a time-limit vis-à-vis the defendant, as a result of which the loss of a right occurred and the two-month time-limit for the filing of the application for restitutio in integrum was complied with.