- 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-74/10: Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Flaco Geräte v OHIM — Delgado Sánchez (FLACO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0074
62010TN0074
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
17.4.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 100/64
(Case T-74/10)
2010/C 100/94
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Flaco Geräte GmbH (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jesús Delgado Sánchez (Socuellamos, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2009 in case R 86/2009-2; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLACO’, for goods in classes 7, 8, 9 and 11
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: Spanish trade mark registration of the mark ‘FLACO’, for goods in class 7
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application for the Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly took into account a wrong translation of the goods covered by the mark cited in the opposition proceedings; infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not take into account the plea of non use filed by the applicant.