Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62010TN0139

Case T-139/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Milux v OHIM (REFLUXCONTROL)

OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 39–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
26/03/2010
Date lodged:
26/03/2010
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

5.6.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/39

Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Milux v OHIM (REFLUXCONTROL)

(Case T-139/10)

2010/C 148/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 January 2010 in case R 1134/2009-4; and

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “REFLUXCONTROL” for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.

Top