- 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-351/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014 — Construlink/OHIM — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0351
62014TN0351
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
11.8.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 261/30
(Case T-351/14)
2014/C 261/54
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisboa, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Coimbra, Portugal)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1059/2013-1;
—Consider the trade mark application No 10 128 262 GATEWIT fully sustained;
—Order the OHMI and the Opponent to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘GATEWIT’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 128 262
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘wit software’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 as well as the national registration of the company name ‘Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA’
Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled and the trade mark applied for rejected
Pleas in law:
—Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—Violation of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.