- 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-39/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0039
62013TN0039
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
6.4.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 101/21
(Case T-39/13)
2013/C 101/45
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Ełk, Poland) (represented by: M. Nentwig and G. Becker, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. (Szprotawa, Poland)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of November 8, 2012 (case R 1512/2010-3);
—Order the defendant to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘skirting boards’ — Registered Community design No 70 438-0002
Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on a lack of novelty and individual character pursuant to Article 25 (1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 to 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 63(1) and 62(1) of the Council Regulation No 6/2002.