This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0021
Case T-21/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)
Case T-21/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)
Case T-21/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)
IO C 61, 1.3.2014, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.3.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 61/19 |
Action brought on 8 January 2014 — NetMed v OHIM — Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik (SANDTER 1953)
(Case T-21/14)
2014/C 61/34
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: NetMed Sàrl (Wasserbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Schafhaus, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2013 in Case R 1846/2012-1; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SANDTER 1953’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 9 448 887
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sander chemisch-pharmazeutische Fabrik GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘Sander’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25; the international figurative mark with protection in the Benelux countries, Austria and France which includes the word element ‘SANDER’, for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009