Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/24 |

---

Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)

(Case T-11/13)

2013/C 55/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Tegometall International AG (Lengwil, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann and E. Schaper, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Irega AG (Zuchwil, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2012 in Case R 1522/2011-1 and declare Community trade mark No 3 786 134‘MEGO’ invalid; in the alternative, annul that decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for reassessment; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the intervener and OHIM to pay the costs of the invalidity proceedings, the appeal proceedings and the present action. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MEGO’ for goods in Classes 6 and 20 — Community trade mark No 3 786 134

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Irega AG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national, Community and international registrations of the word mark ‘TEGO’, the national and Community trade marks ‘TEGOMETALL’ and the national, Community and international registrations of the figurative mark, which includes the word element ‘Tegometall’, for goods in Classes 6, 20 and 21

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Incorrect application of the principle of res judicata |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 34(2) and Article 8(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |

---

[Top](#document1)