- 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-85/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0085
62014TN0085
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 135/48
(Case T-85/14)
2014/C 135/62
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 9 768 061
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 229 048 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIN’ for goods in Classes 1 to 34 and an earlier non-registered word mark ‘DIN’ in Germany
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested Community trade mark application in its entirety
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.