Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0015

    Case T-15/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitairy Solutions (Representation of a shower drainage pipe)

    OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, p. 28–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    13.4.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 108/28


    Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Group Nivelles v OHIM — Easy Sanitairy Solutions (Representation of a shower drainage pipe)

    (Case T-15/13)

    2013/C 108/72

    Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

    Parties

    Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: H. Jonkhout, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Sanitairy Solutions BV (Losser, Netherlands)

    Form of order sought

    Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 October 2012 in Case 2004/2010-3 and, correcting the grounds as necessary, uphold the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 23 September 2010 in Case ICD 000007024, notification of the latter decision having been received on 1 October 2010.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design representing a shower drainage pipe — Community design No 107834-0025

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Easy Sanitairy Solutions BV

    Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Group Nivelles

    Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Design declared invalid.

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

    Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal’s decision is based on incorrect grounds and, in factual terms, on a false point of comparison.


    Top