- 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-59/10: Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0059
62010TN0059
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 100/57
(Case T-59/10)
2010/C 100/84
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Geemarc Telecom International Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong) (represented by: G. Farrington, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audioline GmbH (Neuss, Germany)
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 20 November 2009 in case R 913/2009-2; and
—Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘AMPLIDECT’ for goods in classes 9 and 16
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and, as a result, cancelled the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to take into account that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal had failed to adduce evidence of lack of distinctive character of the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity; and (ii) failed to take into account that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity has acquired an enhanced distinctiveness through the level of use made of it; the Board of Appeal failed to restrict itself to an examination of the evidence and arguments provided by the parties within the time line set by the Board of Appeal.