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-515/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0515

62011TN0515

September 27, 2011
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

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/22

(Case T-515/11)

2011/C 355/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2011 in case R 1967/2010-2;

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 10 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 7072705

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) misunderstood the burden of arguments and proof laid down in Article 7(1)(b); (ii) erred in applying the relevant case law of the ECJ for the assessment of distinctiveness of slogans and the possible meaning of the mark applied for; and, (iii) neglected the substantial use and notoriety of the mark which is important for the perception of the slogan by the relevant consumers. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the general principles of the administrative proceedings, as the Board of Appeal did not take into account that identical and similar slogans with the word ‘INNOVATION’ have already been registered in the EU and in particular by the OHIM.

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