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 62015TN0129

    Case T-129/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

    OJ C 155, 11.5.2015, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    11.5.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 155/35

    Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

    (Case T-129/15)

    (2015/C 155/41)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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

    Details of the proceedings before OHIM

    Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WAVE 2 PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 117

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1857/2014-5

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order OHIM to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law

    —

    Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top