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 62015TN0233

    Case T-233/15: Action brought on 11 May 2015 — Cofra v OHIM — Armand Thiery (1841)

    OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 40–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    11/05/2015
    Date lodged:
    11/05/2015
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Spanish
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    29.6.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 213/40

    Action brought on 11 May 2015 — Cofra v OHIM — Armand Thiery (1841)

    (Case T-233/15)

    (2015/C 213/66)

    Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois Perret, France)

    Details of the proceedings before OHIM

    Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘1841’ — Community trade mark No 9 119 553

    Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2015 in Case R 805/2014-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order OHIM and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 40(6) of Regulation No 2868/95;

    —

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