CELEX: 62010TO0139
Language: en
Date: 2011-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 March 2011. # Milux Holding SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility. # Cases T-139/10, T-280/10 to T-285/10 and T-349/10 to T-352/10.

Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 March 2011 – Milux v OHIM (REFLUXCONTROL and Others)
      (Cases T‑139/10, T‑280/10 to T‑285/10 and T‑349/10 to T‑352/10)
      Community trade mark – Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party – Inadmissibility
      Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer, who is a third party in relation to the applicant – Applicant company represented by a lawyer who is also its manager – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para., Rules of Procedure
         of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 20-21, 25-26)
      
      Re:
      
         
               ACTIONS against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2010 (Case R 1134/2009-4), concerning the
                  application for registration of the word sign REFLUXCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑139/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case
                  R 1432/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign ANEURYSMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case
                  T‑280/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1433/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign APPETITECONTROL
                  as a Community trade mark (Case T‑281/10); of 8 June 2010 (Case R 1434/2009-4), concerning the application for registration
                  of the word sign STOMACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑282/10); of 17 June 2010 (Case R 1435/2009-4), concerning
                  the application for registration of the word sign BMICONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑283/10); of 3 June 2010 (Case
                  R 1438/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign IMPLANTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case
                  T‑284/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1444/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign CHEMOCONTROL
                  as a Community trade mark (Case T‑285/10); of 29 June 2010 (Case R 1436/2009-4), concerning the application for registration
                  of the word sign OVUMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑349/10); of 2 July 2010 (Case R 1437/2009-4), concerning the
                  application for registration of the word sign HEARTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑350/10); of 28 July 2010 (Case
                  R 1439/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign VESICACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case
                  T‑351/10); and of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1443/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign RECTALCONTROL
                  as a Community trade mark (Case T‑352/10).
               
            Information relating to the case 
      
               Applicant for the Community trade mark: 
            
            
               Milux Holding SA
            
         
               Community trade marks concerned:
            
            
               Word marks REFLUXCONTROL, ANEURYSMCONTROL, APPETITECONTROL, STOMACONTROL, BMICONTROL, IMPLANTCONTROL, CHEMOCONTROL, OVUMCONTROL,
                  HEARTCONTROL, VESICACONTROL and RECTALCONTROL for products and services in Classes 9, 10 and 44
               
            
         
               Decision of the examiner: 
            
            
               Applications for a Community trade mark dismissed
            
         
               Decision of the Board of Appeal: 
            
            
               Appeals dismissed 
            
         
      Operative part
      
         
                  1.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	Cases T‑139/10, T‑280/10 to T‑285/10 and T‑349/10 to T‑352/10 are joined for the purposes of the present order.
               
            
         
                  2.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
               
            
         
                  3.
               
               
                  
               
               
                  	Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.