- 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-82/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0082
62014TN0082
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 112/50
(Case T-82/14)
2014/C 112/64
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maquet GmbH & Co. KG (Rastatt, 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 25 November 2013 in Case R 2292/2012-4 and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark LUCEO, No 8 554 974;
—In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;
—Order the defendant 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 mark LUCEO for goods in Classes, 10, 12 and 28 — Community trade mark No 8 554 974
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Maquet GmbH & Co. KG
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law:
—Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
—Infringement of Article 74 of Regulation No 207/2009
—Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009