Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0609

    Case T-609/15: Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Repsol v OHIM — Basic (BASIC)

    OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 63–64 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.1.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 27/63

    Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Repsol v OHIM — Basic (BASIC)

    (Case T-609/15)

    (2016/C 027/81)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (München, Germany)

    Details of the proceedings before OHIM

    Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

    Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASIC’– Community trade mark No 5 648 159

    Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

    Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 2384/2013-1

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    admit this writ of claim, with all the documents annexed, and the correspondent copies;

    —

    admit all the evidences attached to this writ;

    —

    annul the contested decision;

    —

    order the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

    Plea(s) in law

    —

    The Board of appeal has incorrectly assessed the evidence submitted by Basic AG as to its genuine use of a company names ‘Basic AG’ and ‘Basic’ use in the course of trade in Germany;

    —

    The contested decision is incorrectly based on article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in relation to Article 53 (1) (c), as far as between the marks ‘basic’ figuratives there is no likelihood of confusion. The term basic is lack of distinctiveness;

    —

    The exceptional protection of the German Trademark Law regarding non registered trade names has to be interpreted restrictively, according to Rome Treaty, 23 March 1957 and Community case law.
    Top