EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-184/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0184

62012TN0184

April 26, 2012
With Google you find a lot.
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

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/18

Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

(Case T-184/12)

2012/C 200/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach/Lochhofen, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Springvale, Australia)

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 26 January 2012 in Case R 1956/2010-1;

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 ‘HEATSTRIP’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 35 — application No 7 296 676

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the unregistered word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’, which is protected in Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom for inter alia heaters

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 75 and the second part of Article 76(1) of that regulation

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia