This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TA0053
Case T-53/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division — Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax — Appeal before the Board of Appeal — Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Period for submission — Admissibility of the appeal — Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Correction of a decision — Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)
Case T-53/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division — Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax — Appeal before the Board of Appeal — Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Period for submission — Admissibility of the appeal — Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Correction of a decision — Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)
Case T-53/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division — Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax — Appeal before the Board of Appeal — Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Period for submission — Admissibility of the appeal — Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Correction of a decision — Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)
IO C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 29–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.11.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 347/29 |
Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)
(Case T-53/10) (1)
(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division - Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax - Appeal before the Board of Appeal - Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Period for submission - Admissibility of the appeal - Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Correction of a decision - Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)
2011/C 347/45
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E.A. Busse, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially by S. Schäffner, and subsequently by R. Manea and G. Schneider, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2009, as corrected by the decision of 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3), and against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Peter Reisenthel and Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009; |
|
2. |
Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
|
3. |
Orders each party to bear its own costs. |