This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0132
Case T-132/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
Case T-132/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
Case T-132/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
OJ C 165, 9.6.2012, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.6.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 165/24 |
Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
(Case T-132/12)
2012/C 165/42
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojini Nagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2012 in case R 2308/2010-1, in which the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 6 and 7 was dismissed; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court of the European Union. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been sought: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 6, 7 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 1618982
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Grounds for the application for revocation: The party grounded its request pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the CTM registration
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: It is submitted that the Board of Appeal erred in three respects in its assessment of the evidence under Article 51(1)(c). Had the Board of Appeal correctly applied the authorities in Case T-415/09 Vallis v New Yorker and/or La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA (Case C-259/02) and/or reviewed the evidence it would have held that there was genuine use of goods in classes 6 and 7 with the consent of SIL.