Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0165

    Case T-165/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)

    OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    21.5.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 152/25


    Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)

    (Case T-165/11)

    2011/C 152/46

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R.M.R. van Leeuwen, lawyer)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Investimust, S.A. (Geneva, Switzerland)

    Form of order sought

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2011 in case R 508/2010-4; and

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘COLLEGE’, for services in classes 39 and 43 — Community trade mark registration No 2645489

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as also the Board of Appeal wrongly did not consider the evidence presented in appeal.


    Top