- 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-153/08: Action brought on 25 April 2008 — Shenzhen Taiden Industrial v OHIM — Bosch Security Systems (design of communications equipment)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0153
62008TN0153
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
21.6.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 158/21
(Case T-153/08)
(2008/C 158/35)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Shenzhen Taiden Industrial Co., Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Hartmann, M. Helmer, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bosch Security Systems BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2008 in case R 1437/2006-3; and
—order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design for the product ‘communications equipment’ — registered Community design No 214903-0001
Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Design produced as evidence by the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: An earlier design made available to the public by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV registered as an international design under No DM/055655
Decision of the Invalidity Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Invalidity Division and declaration that the contested design is invalid
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal relied on alleged facts presented by the party requesting the declaration of invalidity for which no evidence was submitted; infringement of Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal erred in holding that the contested design lacked individual character and failed to assess and compare the designs at hand from the point of view of an informed user.