This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0188
Case T-188/13: Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
Case T-188/13: Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
Case T-188/13: Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
IO C 156, 1.6.2013, p. 49–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 04/04/2013
- Date lodged:
- 04/04/2013
- Author:
- Cúirt Ghinearálta
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Gearmáinis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
1.6.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 156/49 |
Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
(Case T-188/13)
2013/C 156/90
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Healing Herbs Ltd (Walkerstone, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2013 in Case R 132/2012-4; |
|
— |
Order the defendant 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 word mark ‘NOTFALL’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 30 — Community trade mark No 9 089 681
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Healing Herbs Ltd
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law:
|
— |
Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
|
— |
Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
