- 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-302/10: Action brought on 15 July 2010 — Crocs v OHIM — Holey Soles and Partenaire Hospitalier International (Representation of footwear)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0302
62010TN0302
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
25.9.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/19
(Case T-302/10)
()
2010/C 260/26
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Delaware, USA) (represented by: I. R. Craig, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Holey Soles Holdings Ltd (Vancouver, Canada) and Partenaire Hospitalier International (La Haie Foissière, France)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2010 in case R 9/2008-3;
—Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: No 257001-0001 (footwear)
Proprietor of the Community design cited in the invalidity proceedings: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community design invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 7(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the provisions of these articles and was led to incorrect conclusions in relation to the novelty, the individual character and the technical function of the Community design.