- 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-166/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0166
62014TN0166
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
12.5.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 142/45
(Case T-166/14)
2014/C 142/58
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: PRS Mediterranean Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Richmond, United States)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 889/2012-2 and R 635/2012-2;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEOWEB’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 6 184 568
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: Various national trademarks of the word mark ‘GEOWEB’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 and the non-registered mark ‘GEOWEB’ used in the course of trade in all Member States of the European Union
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal proceedings
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.