- 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-68/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (watches)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0068
62010TN0068
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
17.4.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 100/60
(Case T-68/10)
2010/C 100/89
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Sphere Time société anonyme (Windhof, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Punch, société par actions simplifiée (Nice, France)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2009 in case R 1130/2008-3 and order the defendant to confirm the validity of the challenged Community registered design; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and to enact that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal bears the costs of the applicant related to the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design registered for ‘watches’
Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested Community design invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered the challenged design as lacking individual character and as not being new; infringement of Article 61(2) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Board of Appeal has not correctly evaluated the applicant’s arguments and evidences submitted in the course of the proceedings, misinterpreted the freedom of the designer and based its decision on a false appreciation, thereby misusing its power.