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 62015TN0213

Case T-213/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)

IO C 205, 22.6.2015, p. 39–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
24/04/2015
Date lodged:
24/04/2015
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Gearmáinis
Type of procedure:
Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

22.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/39

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)

(Case T-213/15)

(2015/C 205/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: toom Baumarkt GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Super-Samstag’ — Community trade mark No 10 304 178

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 657/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(i) and (iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Top