EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0023
Case T-23/13: Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
Case T-23/13: Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
Case T-23/13: Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
OJ C 101, 6.4.2013, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.4.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 101/19 |
Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
(Case T-23/13)
2013/C 101/42
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Senz Technologies BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Hoyng and C. Zeri, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impliva BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) dated 26 September 2012 in Case R 2459/2010-3; |
— |
Uphold the arguments put forward before the General Court and declare the registration of the Registered Community Design with no. 000579032-0002 to be valid; |
— |
Order the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘Umbrellas’ — Registered Community design No 000579032-0002
Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: Impliva BV
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on Articles 4 and 9 Council Regulation No 6/2002
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) and Articles 6 in connection with 25 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.