EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0392
Case T-392/10: Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
Case T-392/10: Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
Case T-392/10: Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 48–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.11.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 301/48 |
Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
(Case T-392/10)
()
2010/C 301/77
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Parties
Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’information (Strasbourg, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of 17 June 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 892/2010-2 in so far as it dismissed the application for trade mark No 004114864 in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42; |
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC CASH’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 4 114 864.
Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the examiner’s decision; partial refusal for registration of the trade mark applied for; decision taken subsequent to the General Court’s judgment in Case T-15/09 Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH), judgment of 9 March 2010, not published in the ECR.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the mark is not descriptive but, on the contrary, is distinctive for all of the goods and services in respect of which registration was refused.