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-187/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0187

62008TN0187

January 1, 2008
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

5.7.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/47

(Case T-187/08)

(2008/C 171/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rodd & Gunn Australia Limited (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and N. Jenkins, Solicitor)

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 12 March 2008 in case R 1245/2007-4;

order restitutio in integrum in respect of Community trade mark No 339 218; and

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark consisting of a representation of a dog for goods in classes 16, 18, and 25 — Community trade mark No 339 218

Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Refusal of the application for restitutio in integrum

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 47 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as renewal of the Community trade mark is permitted not only to the proprietor of such or to its professional representative; the Board of Appeal erred in law and in its assessment of the facts in holding that the Applicant and its authorised representative had failed to exercise due care in the circumstances; the Board of Appeal erred in law in holding that it was careless of the Applicant to appoint Computer Patent Annuities Limited, a trade marks renewals agency, to renew its marks.

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