|
21.7.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 235/28 |
Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts v OHIM — Grupo Lactalis Iberia (Representation of a red and white chessboard)
(Case T-327/14)
2014/C 235/38
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Parties
Applicant: Compagnie des fromages & Richesmonts (Puteaux, France) (represented by: T. Mollet-Vieville and T. Cuche, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Lactalis Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Find that Community trade mark No 6 0 59 687 is valid for the designation of cheeses; |
|
— |
In consequence, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59 687 is invalid; |
|
— |
In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 March 2014 in its entirety in so far as it ruled that Community trade mark No 6 0 59 687 is invalid for the designation of cheeses; |
|
— |
Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Representation of a red and white chessboard
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grupo Lactalis Iberia, SA
Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds provided for in Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the mark in question
Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in fact and in law (infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)