# C_2015089EN.01003301.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/33

---

Action brought on 16 January 2015 — Gómez Echevarría/OHIM — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s)

(Case T-19/15)

(2015/C 089/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría (Benalmádena, Spain) (represented by: E. López-Chicheri y Selma, 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: M and M Direct Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 elements ‘wax by Yuli’s’ — Community trade mark No 9 0 99  367

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 6 November 2014 in Case R 951/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, should the form of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 and dismiss the application for a declaration that Community trade mark No 9 0 99  367‘wax by Yuli’s’ is invalid, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, should the form of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 and dismiss the application for a declaration that Community trade mark No 9 0 99  367‘wax by Yuli’s’ is invalid, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings;

| — | in the further alternative, should the forms of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 as to the costs and set aside those incurred in connection with representation in the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, should the forms of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 as to the costs and set aside those incurred in connection with representation in the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the application for a declaration that the trade mark was invalid was made by way of an abuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the application for a declaration that the trade mark was invalid was made by way of an abuse of power.

| — | Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 53(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that there is no likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 53(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that there is no likelihood of confusion.

| — | Incorrect application and interpretation of Rule 94(1) and (7) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, read in conjunction with Article 85(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect application and interpretation of Rule 94(1) and (7) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, read in conjunction with Article 85(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---