CELEX: 62013TA0011
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-11/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MEGO — Relative ground for refusal — Earlier opposition proceedings — No application of the principle of res judicata)

3.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 388/13
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)
   (Case T-11/13) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MEGO - Relative ground for refusal - Earlier opposition proceedings - No application of the principle of res judicata))
   2014/C 388/15
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Tegmotall International AG (Lengwil, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann and E. Schaper, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Irega AG (Zuchwil, Switzerland)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tegometall International AG and Irega AG.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls 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 (Case R 1522/2011-1);
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tegometall International AG before the General Court as well as the Board of Appeal.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.