This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0400
Case T-400/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
Case T-400/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
Case T-400/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
IO C 261, 11.8.2014, p. 39–40
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.8.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 261/39 |
Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
(Case T-400/14)
2014/C 261/65
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Premo, SL (Campanillas, Spain) (represented by: E. Cornu, F. de Visscher and E. De Gryse, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prema Semiconductor GmbH (Mainz, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2014 in Case R 1000/2013-5; |
— |
Subsidiarily, annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition regarding ‘inductors’, ‘transformers’ and ‘noise filters’; |
— |
Order OHIM, and if appropriate the intervening party, to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union for the figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREMO’, for goods in Class 9 — International registration designating the European Union No 973 341
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prema Semiconductor GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘PREMA’ for goods in Class 9
Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was partially dismissed
Pleas in law:
— |
Infringement of Rule 22(6) of Commission Regulation No. 2868/95 and the rights of defence of the applicant; |
— |
Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |