EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-713/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Pharm-a-care Laboratories v OHIM — Pharmavite (VITAMELTS)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0713

62015TN0713

November 30, 2015
With Google you find a lot.
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 38/73

(Case T-713/15)

(2016/C 038/99)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharmavite LLC (California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VITAMELTS’ — Community trade mark No 11 403 581

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2015 in Case R 2649/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division in its entirety so that Application for Revocation No. 8627 C is rejected;

order OHIM and Pharmavite LLC to pay the Appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law

The Board of Appeal infringed Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. It erred in law in finding that the Appellant has acted in bad faith when filing the application for registration of the contested trade mark;

The Board of Appeal’s decision is based, in part, on an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, namely the failure to provide the Appellant with an opportunity to respond to evidence submitted by the Cancellation Applicant.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia