- 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-71/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ANNAPURNA — Application for annulment filed by the intervener — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the trade mark — Proof of use for the registered goods)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TA0071
62013TA0071
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 112/31
(Case T-71/13)(1)
((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ANNAPURNA - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the trade mark - Proof of use for the registered goods))
2014/C 112/40
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 2409/2011 5), relating to revocation proceedings between Anapurna GmbH and Annapurna SpA.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Rejects Annapurna SpA’s application for annulment;
3.Orders Anapurna GmbH to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Annapurna SpA;
4.Orders Annapurna SpA to bear its own costs.
OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.