- 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-33/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Piotrowski v OHIM (MEDIGYM)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0033
62012TN0033
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
17.3.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 80/24
(Case T-33/12)
2012/C 80/40
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Elke Piotrowski (Viernheim, Germany) (represented by J. Albrecht, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
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) of 18 November 2011 in Case R 734/2011-4;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MEDIGYM’ for goods in Class 10
Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal’s decision was based on reasons on which the applicant had had no opportunity to present her comments and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Community trade mark at issue was refused protection pursuant to Article 154(3) and Article 37(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 even though the mark was not ineligible for registration either under Article 7(1)(b) or Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009