- 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-581/11: Action brought on 9 November 2011 — Dimian v OHIM — Bayer Design Fritz Bayer (BABY BAMBOLINA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0581
62011TN0581
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
28.1.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 25/58
(Case T-581/11)
(2012/C 25/112)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Dimian AG (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer Design Fritz Bayer GmbH & Co. KG (Michelau, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in case R 1822/2010-2; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘BABY BAMBOLINA’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark registration No 6403927
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request pursuant to Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) and in conjunction of Council Regulation No 207/2009, to the extent that the Board of Appeal has excluded the relevance of the mentioned catalogues referring to the period 2008-2009.