- 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-87/10: Action brought on 23 February 2010 — Chestnut Medical Technologies v OHIM (PIPELINE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0087
62010TN0087
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 100/67
(Case T-87/10)
2010/C 100/98
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H. Kunz-Hallstein, 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 10 December 2009 in case R 968/2009-2; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PIPELINE’ for goods in class 10
Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment that the Community trade mark concerned has a descriptive character; infringement of Articles 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal, by ignoring arguments brought by the applicant, infringed upon the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision has been based.