Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0495

Case T-495/15: Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

OJ C 354, 26.10.2015, p. 40–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.10.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/40

Action brought on 27 August 2015 — Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus v OHIM — Spanish Oranges (MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN)

(Case T-495/15)

(2015/C 354/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad agraria de transformación no 9982 Montecitrus (Pulpí, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spanish Oranges, SL (Castellón, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MOUNTAIN CITRUS SPAIN’ — Application for registration No 11 290 293

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2015 in Case R 871/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the contested decision;

—

refuse the application of the trademark at issue for all goods covered in classes 29 and 31;

—

order the Intervener to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Top