- 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
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 March 2011. # Milux Holding SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility. # Case T-175/10.
ECLI:EU:T:2011:99
62010TO0175
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
(Case T-175/10)
Community trade mark – Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party – Inadmissibility
Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer, who is a third party in relation to the applicant – Applicant company represented by a lawyer who is also its manager – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 18-19, 23-24)
Re:
ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2010 (Case R 1116/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign FERTILITYINVIVO as a Community trade mark.
Information relating to the case
Applicant for the Community trade mark:
Community trade mark sought:
Word mark FERTILITYINVIVO for goods in Classes 9, 10 and 44
Decision of the examiner:
Application for a Community trade mark dismissed
Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Appeal dismissed
Operative part
1.The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.