- 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-508/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Folders)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0508
62012TN0508
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
26.1.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 26/64
(Case T-508/12)
2013/C 26/126
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: The Automobile Association Ltd (St. Helier, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Walker, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Duncan Petersen Publishing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2012 in case R 172/2011-3, and remit the matter back to OHIM for reconsideration; and.
—Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘folders’ — registered Community design No 1121404-0001
Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant requested the invalidity of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002
Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law:
—Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 6/2002;
—Infringement of Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 62 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; and
—Infringement of Article 25(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 3(a) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.