CELEX: 62013TN0198
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-198/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)

15.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/32
            
         Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)
   (Case T-198/13)
   2013/C 171/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Tainan County, Taiwan)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IMAX’ for goods in classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 9 392 556
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations No 4 411 658 and No 4 411 641 of the figurative mark ‘Himax’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.