- 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-278/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark PROFLEX — Earlier national word mark PROFEX — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TA0278
62012TA0278
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 34/32
(Case T-278/12)(1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark PROFLEX - Earlier national word mark PROFEX - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 034/36)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Landau in der Pfalz, Germany) (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern and A. Feutlinske, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2012 (Case R 413/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH and Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1)Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 March 2012 (Case R 413/2011-2).
2)Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
(1)
OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.