- 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-169/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. Srl v OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MOTO B — Earlier non-registered national figurative marks MOTOBI — Relative ground for refusal — Evidence that the earlier non-registered marks are well known — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 2868/95 — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TA0169
62013TA0169
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
14.3.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 98/29
(Case T-169/13)(<span class="super">1</span>)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MOTO B - Earlier non-registered national figurative marks MOTOBI - Relative ground for refusal - Evidence that the earlier non-registered marks are well known - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation No 2868/95 - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
(2016/C 098/37)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 95/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Benelli Q.J. Srl and Demharter GmbH.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.