EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0621

62013TN0621

November 22, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/14

(Case T-621/13)

2014/C 31/25

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL (Băile, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)

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 (OHIM) in Case R 388/2013-4;

order OHIM and Alva Management GmbH to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL

Community trade mark concerned: the black and white figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti’ (Community trade mark application No 10 109 981)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alva Management GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 6 645 071, German registration No 1 161 287, and international registrations Nos 588 232 and 657 169 of the word mark ‘PERLAMAR’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and the trade mark cited in opposition.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia