Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0476

Case T-476/15: Action brought on 19 August 2015 — European Food v OHIM — Société des Produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

OJ C 337, 12.10.2015, p. 37–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.10.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/37

Action brought on 19 August 2015 — European Food v OHIM — Société des Produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

(Case T-476/15)

(2015/C 337/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FITNESS’ — Community trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2015 in Case R 2542/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Office in order to issue a decision in compliance with the Court’s ruling;

—

as a subsidiary, alter the contested decision and cancel CTM Fitness no 2470326;

—

order OHIM to pay the costs generated by the current proceedings.

Pleas in law

—

Infringement of rule 37(b)(vi), rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Top