Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/22 |

---

Action brought on 5 June 2013 — Silicium España Laboratorios/OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5)

(Case T-306/13)

(2013/C 226/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Silicium España Laboratorios, SL (Vila-Seca, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of March 7, 2013 (Case R 383/2012-1), to the extent it declares Community trade mark No 3384625, ‘LLRG5’, invalid on the grounds that it was applied for in bad faith; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 December, 2011 in Case 4174 C; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the OHIM to bear its own costs and Silicium’s costs incurred in connection with these proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘LLRG5’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 384 625

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the invalidity of the contested CTM

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

---

[Top](#document1)