- 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-136/11: Action brought on 10 March 2011 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (Pelikan)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0136
62011TN0136
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
7.5.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 139/23
(Case T-136/11)
2011/C 139/44
Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak
Parties
Applicant: pelicantravel.com (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Chlipala, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2010 in Case R 1428/2009-2;
—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: figurative trade mark “Pelikan” for services in Classes 35 and 39 (Community trade mark no 3 325 941).
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The Applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant was acting in bad faith when filing the application for the trade mark [Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009].
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, inasmuch as OHIM incorrectly assessed the facts, evidence and law, and thereby came to the incorrect conclusion that the trade mark in question was not lodged in bad faith.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).