EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0482

Case T-482/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)

OJ C 313, 26.10.2013, p. 33–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.10.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/33


Action brought on 9 September 2013 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v OHIM — Cryo-Save (CryoSafe)

(Case T-482/13)

2013/C 313/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cryo-Save AG (Pfäffikon, Switzerland)

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) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and alter it to the effect that the appeal lodged by the applicant at OHIM is well-founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected;

In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012-4) and refer the case back to the competent Examiner at OHIM;

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CryoSafe’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 619 586

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cryo-Save AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CryoSave’ for goods in Classes 10, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


Top