- 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-396/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0396
62011TN0396
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
8.10.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 298/19
(Case T-396/11)
2011/C 298/35
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 May 2011, notified on 20 May 2011, in Case R 374/2010-4;
—Reject the objection lodged on 16 March 2010 by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH against the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 29 January 2010 in cancellation proceedings No 2880 C;
—Order OHIM and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH, should it intervene in the present case, to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘ultrafilter international’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 11, 37, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 121 839
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the application is based on absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the contested word mark is descriptive
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Cancellation Division’s decision was annulled and the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) and (3), 52(1)(a), 56(1)(a), 75(1) and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009