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-609/15: Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Repsol v OHIM — Basic (BASIC)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0609

62015TN0609

October 29, 2015
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

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/63

(Case T-609/15)

(2016/C 027/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASIC’– Community trade mark No 5 648 159

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 2384/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

admit this writ of claim, with all the documents annexed, and the correspondent copies;

admit all the evidences attached to this writ;

annul the contested decision;

order the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea(s) in law

The Board of appeal has incorrectly assessed the evidence submitted by Basic AG as to its genuine use of a company names ‘Basic AG’ and ‘Basic’ use in the course of trade in Germany;

The contested decision is incorrectly based on article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in relation to Article 53 (1) (c), as far as between the marks ‘basic’ figuratives there is no likelihood of confusion. The term basic is lack of distinctiveness;

The exceptional protection of the German Trademark Law regarding non registered trade names has to be interpreted restrictively, according to Rome Treaty, 23 March 1957 and Community case law.

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