EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0254

Case T-254/13: Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Stayer Ibérica/OHIM — Korporaciya Masternet (STAYER)

OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 40–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 10–10 (HR)

20.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/40


Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Stayer Ibérica/OHIM — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (STAYER)

(Case T-254/13)

2013/C 207/68

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the contested decision in so far as it upholds the appeal in part and declares the CTM registration No 4675881 invalid for the following goods:

Class 7: Equipment and tools; parts of cutting and polishing diamond machines; bits and cutting wheels for the following industries; marble, granite, stone, clay, slabs, tiles and brick, and, in general terms, cutting tools as parts of equipment included in Class 7.

Class 8: Hand held abrasive items (wheels and grinding wheels).

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘STAYER’ — Community trade mark registration No 4 675 881

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds for the request for a declaration of invalidity were those of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(2), 15 and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


Top