- 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-636/13: Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0636
62013TN0636
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
8.2.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 39/24
(Case T-636/13)
2014/C 39/42
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MovieStation’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 5743257
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: MSI Technology GmbH
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009