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 62011TN0326

    Case T-326/11: Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)

    SL C 269, 10.9.2011, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    10.9.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 269/50

    Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)

    (Case T-326/11)

    2011/C 269/111

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by J. Bauer, lawyer)

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

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2011 in Case R 1596/2010-4;

    —

    Refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for a decision on the question whether all due care was taken in respect of the renewal of the relevant Community trade mark BrainLAB, No 1 290 113;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Community trade mark concerned: the word mark BrainLAB for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 42

    Decision of the department ‘Register and associated databases’: Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum as regards the time-limit for filing the request for renewal and paying the renewal fee

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum and finding that Community trade mark No 1 290 113 had expired

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009 as it was not possible for any of the parties, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, to comply with a time-limit vis-à-vis the defendant, as a result of which the loss of a right occurred and the two-month time-limit for the filing of the application for restitutio in integrum was complied with.

    Top