- 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-578/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0578
62008TN0578
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 55/44
(Case T-578/08)
(2009/C 55/78)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: DVB Project (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurotel SpA (Milan, Italy)
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 14 October 2008 in case R 1387/2007-2; and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark ‘DVB’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the request for invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled the contested decision
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that a monopoly on the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity would seriously impair the business activities of traders in the field of telecommunication; Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to analyse the merits of the issue of acquired distinctiveness raised by the applicant.