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-34/12: Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0034

62012TN0034

January 25, 2012
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

17.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/24

(Case T-34/12)

2012/C 80/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2011 in Case R 2255/2010-1;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HERBA SHINE’ for goods in Class 3

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community word mark and international registration ‘HERBACIN’ for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld

Pleas in law: Infringement of the first sentence of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that, at the time of the first-instance opposition decision, an effective request for proof of use on the part of the applicant no longer existed; infringement of point (b) of the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal of OHIM erred in law in disregarding considerable export turnover under the opposing mark ‘HERBACIN’; and infringement of the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the proof of use submitted as regards customers within the Community was incorrectly assessed.

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