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
2014/C 24/48
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Applicant: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 596/2013-1);
—refer the case back to OHIM, recommending that it proceed to restitutio in integrum;
—order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘Gauff JBG Ingenieure’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 992 967
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and Community word mark ‘Gauff’ and German figurative mark and Community figurative mark ‘GAUFF’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was partially upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum and rejection of the appeal as inadmissible.
Pleas in law: infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009.