Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0539

Case T-539/15: Action brought on 17 September 2015 — LLR-G5 v OHIM — Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5)

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015, p. 50–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.11.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/50

Action brought on 17 September 2015 — LLR-G5 v OHIM — Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5)

(Case T-539/15)

(2015/C 381/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glycan Finance Corp. Ltd (Sheffield, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in colour containing the word elements ‘SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5’ — Community trade mark application No 10 424 703

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 291/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 November 2013 in case B 2 027 053, and to the extent that it granted the other party’s appeal against the same decision of the Opposition Division;

—

the opposition of the other party to the registration of the applicant’s community trade mark application No. 1 042 4703 is dismissed;

—

order OHIM and the other party, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

—

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