Choose the experimental features you want to try

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)

    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.


    Top