Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0540

    Case T-540/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS)

    OJ C 329, 22.9.2014, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    22.9.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 329/23


    Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Klass v OHIM — F. Smit (PLAYSEAT) (PLAYSEATS)

    (Case T-540/14)

    2014/C 329/32

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Oliver Klass (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: U. Bender, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: F. Smit Holding BV (Doetinchem, Netherlands)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    Alter the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Cases R 1616/2013-4 and R 1834/2013-4 to the effect that both of the applications for a declaration of invalidity of 31 July 2012 are granted;

    Order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word marks ‘PLAYSEAT’ and ‘PLAYSEATS’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade marks No 7 5 95  184 and No 8 8 42  254

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: F. Smit Holding BV

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

    Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: the applications for a declaration of invalidity were rejected

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeals were dismissed

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof


    Top