EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009CB0332

Case C-332/09 P: Order of the Court of 23 April 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE — Invalidity proceedings — Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity)

OJ C 234, 28.8.2010, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/19


Order of the Court of 23 April 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH

(Case C-332/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE - Invalidity proceedings - Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity)

2010/C 234/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Frosch Touristik GmbH (represented by: H. Lauf, Rechtsanwalt), DSR touristik GmbH

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik v OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE), by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 dismissing the appeal by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring that mark partially invalid — Determination of the material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity in invalidity proceedings

Operative part of the order

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


Top