EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0400

Case T-400/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

OJ C 261, 11.8.2014, p. 39–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.8.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/39


Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

(Case T-400/14)

2014/C 261/65

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Premo, SL (Campanillas, Spain) (represented by: E. Cornu, F. de Visscher and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prema Semiconductor GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2014 in Case R 1000/2013-5;

Subsidiarily, annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition regarding ‘inductors’, ‘transformers’ and ‘noise filters’;

Order OHIM, and if appropriate the intervening party, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union for the figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREMO’, for goods in Class 9 — International registration designating the European Union No 973 341

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prema Semiconductor GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘PREMA’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was partially dismissed

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Rule 22(6) of Commission Regulation No. 2868/95 and the rights of defence of the applicant;

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


Top