Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0136

    Case T-136/14: Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

    OJ C 135, 5.5.2014, p. 55–55 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.5.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 135/55


    Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

    (Case T-136/14)

    2014/C 135/71

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Urwin and D. Sills, Solicitors)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siam Grains Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 December 2013 given in Case R 1086/2012-4;

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 3 520 641

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

    Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier non-registered trade mark and the earlier sign ‘used in the course of trade designating a class of goods’‘BASMATI’ used in the United Kingdom in relation to ‘rice’

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.


    Top