Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TN0501

Case T-501/09: Action brought on 8 December 2009 — PhysioNova v OHIM — Flex Equipos de Descanso (FLEX)

OJ C 37, 13.2.2010, p. 46–47 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.2.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/46


Action brought on 8 December 2009 — PhysioNova v OHIM — Flex Equipos de Descanso (FLEX)

(Case T-501/09)

2010/C 37/67

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: PhysioNova GmbH (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: J. Klinik, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

Annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2009 in Case R 1/2009-1;

amend the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 1/2009-1 so as to overrule the decision of the Cancellation Division of 27. October 2008 in Case 2237 C;

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the Community figurative mark ‘FLEX’ No 2 275 220 for goods and services in classes 6, 10, 17 and 20

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: PhysioNova GmbH

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the German trade mark No 39 903 314‘PhysioFlex’ and the German trade mark No 39 644 431‘Rotoflex’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


Top