Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0039

    Case T-39/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)

    OJ C 101, 6.4.2013, p. 21–21 (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 101/21


    Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)

    (Case T-39/13)

    2013/C 101/45

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Ełk, Poland) (represented by: M. Nentwig and G. Becker, lawyers)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. (Szprotawa, Poland)

    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) of November 8, 2012 (case R 1512/2010-3);

    Order the defendant to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘skirting boards’ — Registered Community design No 70 438-0002

    Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant

    Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on a lack of novelty and individual character pursuant to Article 25 (1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 to 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 63(1) and 62(1) of the Council Regulation No 6/2002.


    Top