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 62013TN0379

Case T-379/13: Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)

OJ C 260, 7.9.2013, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 260, 7.9.2013, p. 39–40 (HR)

Date of document:
22/07/2013
Date lodged:
22/07/2013
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

7.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/50

Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)

(Case T-379/13)

2013/C 260/89

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Innovation First, Inc. (Greenville, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of April 19, 2013 in the matter R 1271/2012-1;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the cost of the appeal proceeding before the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘NANO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 157 421

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Top