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 62012TN0467

Case T-467/12: Action brought on 25 October 2012 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)

IO C 9, 12.1.2013, p. 38–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/38

Action brought on 25 October 2012 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)

(Case T-467/12)

2013/C 9/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tridium, Inc. (Richmond, Unites States) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: q-bus Mediatektur GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in case R 1943/2011-2; and

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEDONA FRAMEWORK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9067372

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 934023 of the figurative mark ‘~sedna’, for goods in class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Top