- 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-322/14: Action brought on 7 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0322
62014TN0322
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
21.7.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/26
(Case T-322/14)
2014/C 235/36
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2014 in Case R 951/2013-1;
—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 figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 8 8 38 609
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Rezon OOD
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division
Pleas in law:
—Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;
—Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;
—Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009