- 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-482/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0482
62013TN0482
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
26.10.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 313/33
(Case T-482/13)
2013/C 313/63
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cryo-Save AG (Pfäffikon, Switzerland)
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) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and alter it to the effect that the appeal lodged by the applicant at OHIM is well-founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected;
—In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and refer the case back to the competent Examiner at OHIM;
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CryoSafe’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 619 586
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cryo-Save AG
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CryoSave’ for goods in Classes 10, 42 and 44
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009