- 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 C-406/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Atlas Transport GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08 Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs): other party: Atlas Air Inc.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0406
62011CN0406
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
22.10.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 311/20
—
(Case C-406/11 P)
2011/C 311/33
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Atlas Transport GmbH (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Atlas Air Inc.
Form of order sought
—Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 May 2011 in Case T-145/08;
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1);
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs of both legal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested decision, OHIM and the General Court infringed the third sentence of Article 59 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark (old version) which governs the obligation to state the grounds of appeal. By the contested decision, OHIM and the General Court also infringed Article 60 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark in conjunction also with Rule 20(7) of the Regulation implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark, as well as established legal principles of the Member States. The proceedings before OHIM should imperatively have been stayed, meaning that the time-limit for bringing the appeal has not yet expired.
—