Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0337

Case T-337/14: Action brought on 8 May 2014  — Rezon OOD v OHIM — mobile.international GmbH (mobile.de proMotor)

IO C 245, 28.7.2014, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.7.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/24


Action brought on 8 May 2014 — Rezon OOD v OHIM — mobile.international GmbH (mobile.de proMotor)

(Case T-337/14)

2014/C 245/32

Language in which the application was lodged: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mobile.international GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in Case R 950/2013-1;

grant the applications made to the divisions and boards of appeal of OHIM;

grant in its entirety the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark mobile.international GmbH;

order reimbursement of the applicant’s costs;

order that experts be appointed to produce a written report on the evidential issues raised in the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘mobile.de proMotor’ for services in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 4 896 643.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant, Rezon OOD.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78(1)(e) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 76 thereof and with Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95; infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; conflict, in the light of EU enlargement, between the Community trade mark registered subsequently and an earlier national trade mark.


Top