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