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
(Case T-308/06)(1)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products - Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2012/C 6/19
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, California, United States) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented initially by M. Thewes and V. Wiot, and subsequently by M. Thewes and P. Reuter, lawyers)
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 1094/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Werner & Mertz GmbH and Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs.
(1)
OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.