Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document C2006/190/45

    Case T-158/06: Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

    IO C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 25–25 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    12.8.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 190/25

    Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

    (Case T-158/06)

    (2006/C 190/45)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Adobe Systems Inc. (San Jose, USA) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2006 in Case R 1430/2005-2 Adobe Systems Incorporated v OHIM (Flex) insofar as it dismissed the appeal for other goods than ‘computer hardware; computer peripherals and data processing equipment’ in class 9 and the services applied for of class 42.

    —

    Order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLEX’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — application No 3 795 011

    Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and failure to take prior national registrations into account.

    Top