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 62015TN0367

Case T-367/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Renfe-Operadora v OHIM (AVE)

IO C 346, 19.10.2015, p. 31–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.10.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/31

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Renfe-Operadora v OHIM (AVE)

(Case T-367/15)

(2015/C 346/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Renfe-Operadora, Public business entity (Madrid, Spain), (represented by: J.-B. Devauriex, lawyer and M. Hernández Sandoval, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘AVE’ — Application for restitutio in integrum — Application for registration No 5.640.198

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 712/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision by granting its application for ‘Restitution in integrum’ and, consequently, declare admissible the earlier appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 February 2014, which is to be heard by the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM.

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

—

Incomplete statement of facts in the contested decision, procedural irregularities giving rise to infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the duty of care owed to the applicant.

—

Incorrect assessment of the evidence, lack of proportion between the formal defect supposedly committed by the applicant and the consequences of the same inasmuch as the applicant was deprived of its right to challenge a decision against his interests, and too strict an approach taken in the decision.

—

Infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing as it could not challenge the grounds on which the declaration of partial annulment of the mark ‘AVE’ was based.
Top