Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62009TN0152

    Case T-152/09: Action brought on 11 April 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)

    IO C 153, 4.7.2009, p. 42–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    11/04/2009
    Date lodged:
    11/04/2009
    Author:
    Cúirt Chéadchéime
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Béarla
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    4.7.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 153/42

    Action brought on 11 April 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)

    (Case T-152/09)

    2009/C 153/82

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France)

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2009 in case R 1661/2007-4; and

    —

    Order OHIM to pay the costs

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PROTIACTIVE”, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — application No 4 843 348

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

    Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 5 and 29

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to assess the opposition on its merits; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 76(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise discretion or at least failed to state reasons how it exercised discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal erred by not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.

    (1)  Replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1

    Top