- 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-352/10: Action brought on 26 August 2010 — Milux v OHMI (RECTALCONTROL)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0352
62010TN0352
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
23.10.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 288/54
(Case T-352/10)
()
(2010/C 288/101)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2010 in case R 1443/2009-4;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RECTALCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44
Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment to the facts in this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.