- 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-347/13: Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0347
62013TN0347
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
31.8.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/37
(Case T-347/13)
2013/C 252/63
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Hawe Hydraulik SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HaWi Energietechnik AG (Eggenfelden, Germany)
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 26 April 2013 in Case R 1690/2012-4 relating to Community trade mark application No 6 558 589‘HAWI’;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: HaWi Energietechnik AG
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HAWI’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 558 589
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘HAWE’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law:
—Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the declaration on oath;
—Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the extracts from the Internet;
—Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the assessment of the proof of use in its entirety;
—Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the failure to take the proof of use into account;
—Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009