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 62009TN0505

    Case T-505/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (CAFE CARLYLE)

    SL C 51, 27.2.2010, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.2.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 51/36

    Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (CAFE CARLYLE)

    (Case T-505/09)

    2010/C 51/70

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: The Carlyle, LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mascha & Regner Consulting KEG (Vienna, Austria)

    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 8 October 2009 in case R 239/2009-4; and

    —

    Order the defendant to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation: The word mark “CAFE CARLYLE”, for services in class 42

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for revocation

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Revoked the Community trade mark concerned

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously employed a too restrictive interpretation of the concept of genuine use. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to take into consideration properly the evidence of use submitted by the applicant before the Cancellation Division; (ii) to assess correctly the scope of the said evidence of use; and (iii) to make an overall assessment thereof.

    Top