# C_2016027EN.01006302.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/63

---

Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Repsol v OHIM — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-609/15)

(2016/C 027/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (München, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASIC’– Community trade mark No 5 648 159

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 2384/2013-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit this writ of claim, with all the documents annexed, and the correspondent copies; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit this writ of claim, with all the documents annexed, and the correspondent copies;

| — | admit all the evidences attached to this writ; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit all the evidences attached to this writ;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea(s) in law

Plea(s) in law

| — | The Board of appeal has incorrectly assessed the evidence submitted by Basic AG as to its genuine use of a company names ‘Basic AG’ and ‘Basic’ use in the course of trade in Germany; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of appeal has incorrectly assessed the evidence submitted by Basic AG as to its genuine use of a company names ‘Basic AG’ and ‘Basic’ use in the course of trade in Germany;

| — | The contested decision is incorrectly based on article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in relation to Article 53 (1) (c), as far as between the marks ‘basic’ figuratives there is no likelihood of confusion. The term basic is lack of distinctiveness; |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision is incorrectly based on article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in relation to Article 53 (1) (c), as far as between the marks ‘basic’ figuratives there is no likelihood of confusion. The term basic is lack of distinctiveness;

| — | The exceptional protection of the German Trademark Law regarding non registered trade names has to be interpreted restrictively, according to Rome Treaty, 23 March 1957 and Community case law. |
| --- | --- |

—

The exceptional protection of the German Trademark Law regarding non registered trade names has to be interpreted restrictively, according to Rome Treaty, 23 March 1957 and Community case law.

---