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-556/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Royalton Overseas/OHIM — SC Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0556

62012TN0556

December 21, 2012
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 63/22

(Case T-556/12)

2013/C 63/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Năstase, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and design) as of October 4, 2012 and Communicated on October 22, 2012 in the case file No R 2535/2011-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘KAISERHOFF’, for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 9 242 066

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: Romanian trade mark registration No 110 809 of the word mark ‘KAISERHOFF’ for goods in classes 11, 21 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50, corroborated with Rule 20(7) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76(1) and 42(5) of Council Regulation No 2007/2009.

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