Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0347

    Case T-347/13: Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)

    OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 37–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 23–24 (HR)

    31.8.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 252/37


    Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)

    (Case T-347/13)

    2013/C 252/63

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Hawe Hydraulik SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HaWi Energietechnik AG (Eggenfelden, Germany)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 April 2013 in Case R 1690/2012-4 relating to Community trade mark application No 6 558 589‘HAWI’;

    Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for a Community trade mark: HaWi Energietechnik AG

    Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HAWI’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 558 589

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

    Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘HAWE’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9

    Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

    Pleas in law:

    Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

    Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the declaration on oath;

    Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the extracts from the Internet;

    Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the assessment of the proof of use in its entirety;

    Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the failure to take the proof of use into account;

    Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


    Top