This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0037
Case T-37/13: Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)
Case T-37/13: Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)
Case T-37/13: Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)
OJ C 86, 23.3.2013, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
23.3.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 86/23 |
Action brought on 22 January 2013 — Exakt Advanced Technologies v OHIM — Exakt Precision Tools (EXAKT)
(Case T-37/13)
2013/C 86/38
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Exakt Advanced Technologies GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Bismarck, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd (Aberdeen, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2012 in Case R 1764/2011-1; |
— |
Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of 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 figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 37 — Community trade mark No 3 996 592
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Exakt Precision Tools Ltd
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the figurative mark including the word element ‘EXAKT’ for goods in Classes 7, 8 and 9
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009