EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0495
Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)
Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)
Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)
SL C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 37–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
26.11.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 347/37 |
Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)
(Case T-495/11)
2011/C 347/67
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Michael Streng (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Pappert, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulvio Gismondi (Roma, Italy)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2011 in case R 1348/2010-4, and refer the case back to the Fourth Board of Appeal; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PARAMETRICA’, for services in classes 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6048433
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30311096 of the word mark ‘parameta’, for services in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition
Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 19(2) and (3) in connection with Rule 98(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the submitted documents containing WIPO INID codes are not in the language of the proceedings and/or taken together with the translation provided in the writ of 3 November 2008, do not constitute ‘translation’ within the meaning of Rule 98(1) CTMIR.