Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62013TN0197

Case T-197/13: Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013, p. 51–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

1.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/51

Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)

(Case T-197/13)

2013/C 156/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MARQUES DE L’ÉTAT DE MONACO (M.E.M.) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

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 29 January 2013 in Case R 113/2012-4;

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘MONACO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 43 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 069 254

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

—

First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

—

Second plea, alleging infringement of the law in the interpretation of distinctiveness

—

Third plea, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of distinctiveness

—

Fourth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, insufficient reasoning or contradictory reasons for the refusal of registration for the goods in Class 9

—

Fifth plea, alleging the infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground of insufficient reasoning
Top