- 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-540/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0540
62014TN0540
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
22.9.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 329/23
(Case T-540/14)
2014/C 329/32
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Oliver Klass (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: U. Bender, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: F. Smit Holding BV (Doetinchem, Netherlands)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Alter the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Cases R 1616/2013-4 and R 1834/2013-4 to the effect that both of the applications for a declaration of invalidity of 31 July 2012 are granted;
—Order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word marks ‘PLAYSEAT’ and ‘PLAYSEATS’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade marks No 7 5 95 184 and No 8 8 42 254
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: F. Smit Holding BV
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the applications for a declaration of invalidity were rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeals were dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof