This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0567
Case T-567/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Viejo Valle v OHIM — Etablissements Coquet (Soup-plate with grooves)
Case T-567/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Viejo Valle v OHIM — Etablissements Coquet (Soup-plate with grooves)
Case T-567/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Viejo Valle v OHIM — Etablissements Coquet (Soup-plate with grooves)
OJ C 32, 4.2.2012, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/27 |
Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Viejo Valle v OHIM — Etablissements Coquet (Soup-plate with grooves)
(Case T-567/11)
2012/C 32/56
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Viejo Valle, SA (L'Olleria, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etablissements Coquet SA (Saint Léonard de Noblat, France)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
|
— |
declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible; |
|
— |
annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2011, in Case R 1055/2010-3; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design No 384.912-0009, representing a decorated service set; a soup-plate.
Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Etablissements Coquet SA.
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, since the Community design constitutes an unauthorised use of a work protected by the copyright legislation of a Member State.
Decision of the Cancellation Division: upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the action.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Article 28(1)(b)(iii) of Regulation No 2245/2002, since the defendant has not sufficiently documented the protected work on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based, nor provided details of its proprietorship, nor its object.