Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0726

Case T-726/14: Action brought on 26 September 2014  — Novar v OHIM

OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 39–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/39


Action brought on 26 September 2014 — Novar v OHIM

(Case T-726/14)

(2015/C 007/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novar GmbH (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Weede, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

order the defendant Office to pay EUR 2  498,00 plus interest in the amount of 5 percentage points over the base rate for the period since the legal proceedings began;

order the defendant Office to pay the costs, including the costs of representing the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

Plea in law: Non-contractual liability in accordance with Article 118(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

The applicant asserts that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals and that there is a causal link between action and damage. The applicant argues that the unlawful action resides in the decision of 14 May 2013 rejecting the opposition. A sufficiently serious breach of law exists because, in the opposition decision of 14 May 2013, the Office assumed — contrary to the information contained in the letter of 22 June 2012 regarding the documents to be submitted in trade mark opposition proceedings B002027251 for the substantiation of earlier rights — additional requirements for proving the earlier rights and for that reason failed to take account of the applicant’s earlier rights. That infringement was the cause of the additional legal costs required to be incurred by the applicant in the context of the appeal against the decision of 14 May 2013, which was remedied by the decision of the Opposition Division of 17 October 2013.


Top