EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-30/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — M.I. Industries v OHIM — Natural Instinct (Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0030

62016TN0030

January 26, 2016
With Google you find a lot.
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

21.3.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/40

(Case T-30/16)

(2016/C 106/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, United States) (represented by: T. Elias, Barrister, B. Cookson, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended’ — Application for registration No 11 438 074

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2015 in Case R 2944/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

the applicant’s opposition No B 002 181 272 be upheld and NIL’s application No 11 438 074 be refused; alternatively, declare that the applicant has proved use its CTMs No 5 208 418 and No 5 208 201 for the purposes of the opposition No B 002 181 272, and remit the matter to the Fifth Board of Appeal for a determination of the issues arising in respect of each of those marks under Article 8(1)(b) CTMR; in the further alternative, remit the matter back to the Fifth Board of Appeal in its entirety;

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 42(2) Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Article 75 Regulation No 207/2009.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia