Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0636

    Case T-636/13: Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

    OJ C 39, 8.2.2014, p. 24–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.2.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 39/24


    Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

    (Case T-636/13)

    2014/C 39/42

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application;

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MovieStation’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 5743257

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

    Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: MSI Technology GmbH

    Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009


    Top