This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0278
Case T-278/12: Action brought on 22 June 2012 — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX)
Case T-278/12: Action brought on 22 June 2012 — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX)
Case T-278/12: Action brought on 22 June 2012 — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX)
OJ C 273, 8.9.2012, p. 12–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.9.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 273/12 |
Action brought on 22 June 2012 — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX)
(Case T-278/12)
2012/C 273/21
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Landau in der Pfalz, Germany) (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern and A. Feutlinske, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2012 in case R 413/2011-2; and |
|
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PROFLEX’ for goods and service sin classes 9, 12 and 25
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 39628817 for the word mark ‘PROFEX’, for goods in classes 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 21
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition entirely
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) no 2868/95.