- 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-51/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Partial revocation — Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TA0051
62012TA0051
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
10.11.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 395/34
(Case T-51/12) (*)
((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2014/C 395/40)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Lucknow, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Casucci, N. Ferreti and C. Galli, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1);
2.Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;
3.Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.
(*)
Language of the case: English
OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.