- 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-501/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — May v OHIM — Constantin Film Produktion (WINNETOU)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0501
62013TN0501
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
16.11.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 336/28
(Case T-501/13)
2013/C 336/59
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Karl May Verwaltungs- und Vertriebs- GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Pejman, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 July 2013 in Case R 125/2012-1;
—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 ‘WINNETOU’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 39, 41, 42 and 43 (Community trade mark No 2 735 017)
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Cancellation Division’s decision was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid in part
Pleas in law: Infringement of the principle of the autonomy and independence of the Community trade mark and of the Community trade mark regime and infringement of Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009