CELEX: 62015TN0201
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-201/15: Action brought on 22 April 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

15.6.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 198/44
            
         Action brought on 22 April 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)
   (Case T-201/15)
   (2015/C 198/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘UNICORN’ — Community trade mark No 5 992 805
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 1699/2014-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               OHIM did not take into consideration evidence in Czech;
            
         
               —
            
            
               OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks.