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 62014TN0105

Case T-105/14: Action brought on 12 February 2014 — TrekStor v OHIM — Scanlab (iDrive)

Date of document:
12/02/2014
Date lodged:
12/02/2014
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

14.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/54

Action brought on 12 February 2014 — TrekStor v OHIM — Scanlab (iDrive)

(Case T-105/14)

2014/C 112/70

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, Hong Kong) (represented by: M. Alber, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scanlab AG (Puchheim, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 2330/2012-1 to the effect that the mark ‘iDrive’ is allowed to proceed to registration in its entirety and that the opposing party’s opposition is rejected;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘iDrive’ for goods in Class 9 (Community trade mark application No 10 267 573)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Scanlab AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘IDRIVE’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article [42](5) of Regulation No 207/2009

Top