- 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-292/12: Action brought on 3 July 2012 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0292
62012TN0292
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
8.9.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 273/14
(Case T-292/12)
2012/C 273/25
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2012 in case R 1722/2011-4 and reject the opposition No B 1681447; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 8990591
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.