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 C2006/249/30

Case T-213/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark CYBERGESTION )

OJ C 249, 14.10.2006, p. 12–12 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.10.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/12

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’)

(Case T-213/06)

(2006/C 249/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

—

annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2006, Case R 68/2006-1, which refused to register ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

—

registration of ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the goods and services applied for.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 716)

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of Council Regulation No 40/94.

Top