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-312/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — BYK-Cera (CERATIX)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0312

62011TN0312

June 14, 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

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/32

(Case T-312/11)

2011/C 238/53

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Süd-Chemie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: W. Baron von der Osten-Sacken and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BYK-Cera BV (Deventer, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4);

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BYK-Cera BV

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CERATIX’ for goods in Class 1 — application No 6 358 832

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘CERATOFIX’ for goods in Class 1

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant:

Erred in reducing the evidential value of the documents submitted by the applicant with the general reasoning that they are connected with the applicant itself;

Did not take account of promotional measures as ‘genuine use’;

Did not include all the relevant circumstances in assessing whether the use of the trade mark was genuine and;

Did not examine the evidence of use provided as a whole.

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