- 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-41/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Representation of advertising articles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an advertising article — Earlier Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0041
62014TA0041
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
16.3.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 89/23
(Case T-41/14)(1)
((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an advertising article - Earlier Community designs - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
(2015/C 089/26)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra’anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Clapbanner Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2013 (Case R 981/2012-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd and Clapbanner Ltd.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd to pay the costs.
OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.