- 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-533/12: Action brought on 7 December 2012 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0533
62012TN0533
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
16.2.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 46/19
(Case T-533/12)
2013/C 46/35
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: IBSolution GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IBS AB (Solna, Sweden)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Declare the action to be well founded;
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2012 in case R 771/2011-2;
—Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2012 in case R 771/2011-2, by granting registration of the trade mark applied for; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IBSolution’, for services in classes 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8421877
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: Community trade mark registration No 38729 of the figurative mark ‘IBS’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.