- 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-544/14: Action brought on 18 July 2014 — Société des Produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0544
62014TN0544
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
29.9.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 339/22
(Case T-544/14)
2014/C 339/27
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1128/2013-4 in such a way that the opposition is rejected;
—In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1128/2013-4;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Société des Produits Nestlé SA
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALETE’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 88 379
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terapia SA
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘ALETA’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law:
—Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
—Infringement of Article 63 in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95
—Infringement of Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009