- 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-50/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0050
62013TN0050
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
23.3.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 86/26
(Case T-50/13)
2013/C 86/43
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Müller (Ulm, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2012 in Case R 474/2012-4;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘VOODOO’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 5 832 464
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Andreas Müller
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009