EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0578
Case T-578/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
Case T-578/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
Case T-578/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
OJ C 55, 7.3.2009, p. 44–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.3.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 55/44 |
Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
(Case T-578/08)
(2009/C 55/78)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: DVB Project (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurotel SpA (Milan, Italy)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in case R 1387/2007-2; and |
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark ‘DVB’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the request for invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled the contested decision
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that a monopoly on the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity would seriously impair the business activities of traders in the field of telecommunication; Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to analyse the merits of the issue of acquired distinctiveness raised by the applicant.