- 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-458/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Wuppermann (TEK) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TEK — Subject-matter of the proceedings — Observance of the rights of the defence — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62005TA0458
62005TA0458
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
12.1.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 8/13
(Case T-458/05)
(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TEK - Subject-matter of the proceedings - Observance of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
(2008/C 8/25)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil-Oberhofen, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the Court of First Instance: Wuppermann AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Huisken, and subsequently by I. Friedhoff, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 October 2005 (Case R 1063/2004-2), as rectified on 16 November 2005, relating to invalidity proceedings between Wuppermann AG and Tegometall International AG.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;
3.Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.