- 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-46/12: Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Chrysamed Vertrieb v OHIM — Chrysal International (Chrysamed)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0046
62012TN0046
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
31.3.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 98/25
(Case T-46/12)
2012/C 98/41
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Chrysamed Vertrieb GmbH (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: T. Schneider, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chrysal International B.V. (Naarden, Netherlands)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—uphold the action, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 November 2011 in Case R 0064/2011-1 and reject the opposition against the application for the Community trade mark;
—order OHIM or the potential intervener to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Chrysamed’ for goods in Class 5 (application No 6 387 071)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Chrysal International B.V.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 645 337), the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Class 1 (trade mark No 144 634) and the international figurative mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 877 785)
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue