This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0062
Case T-62/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
Case T-62/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
Case T-62/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
SL C 102, 1.5.2009, p. 21–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
1.5.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 102/21 |
Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
(Case T-62/09)
2009/C 102/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: 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: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, 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 15 December 2008 in case R 740/2008-4; 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 “PROTI SNACK”, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — application No 4 992 145
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39 702 429 of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 608 644 of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 549 559 of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 629 195 of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32
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 as the Board of Appeal failed to provide an assessment on the merits of the opposition; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal refused to exercise its discretion or at least failed to state how it exercised such discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.