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 62016TN0015

    Case T-15/16: Action brought on 14 January 2016 — Pandalis v OHIM– LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

    OJ C 90, 7.3.2016, p. 25–25 (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:
    14/01/2016
    Date lodged:
    14/01/2016
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    German
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    7.3.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 90/25

    Action brought on 14 January 2016 — Pandalis v OHIM– LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

    (Case T-15/16)

    (2016/C 090/33)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

    Details of the proceedings before OHIM

    Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cystus’ — Community mark No 1 273 119

    Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2015 in Case R 2839/2014-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision relating to Invalidity proceedings No 8374 C and Community mark No 1 273 119 ‘Cystus’;

    —

    order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) thereof;

    —

    Misuse of powers;

    —

    Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top