Judgment_paragraph 51 · Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-278/12)

51Furthermore, it follows from the case-law that, where a statement has been established for the purposes of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009 by one of the applicant company’s executives, probative value can be attributed to that statement only if it is supported by other evidence (see, to that effect, judgments of 13 May 2009 in Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK), T‑183/08, EU:T:2009:156, paragraph 39, and CERATIX, paragraph 50 above, EU:T:2012:296, paragraph 30; and of 12 March 2014 in Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL), T‑348/12, EU:T:2014:116, paragraph 33).

Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-278/12)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections