Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:213
Date: 2010-05-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

summary, and in a coherent and intelligible form, from the text of the application itself (see, to that effect, Case T‑247/01 eCopy v OHIM (ECOPY) [2002] ECR II‑5301, paragraphs 15 to 17). 43 In the present case, the applicant’s plea, as submitted in the application, does not include any argument to demonstrate how the Board of Appeal infringed Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94. 44 It follows that the second plea in law must be dismissed as inadmissible. The third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 40/94 45 By its third plea, the applicant criticises the Board of Appeal for having refused to grant it an oral hearing in the course of the proceedings before the Board. According to the applicant, the present case is of a complex nature, giving rise to the need for the parties concerned to present their arguments at an oral hearing. The applicant states that it is common for a decision-making authority to change its position after it has had the opportunity to hear and put questions to the parties involved in a complex dispute. 46 In that regard, it should be recalled that it follows both from the wording of Article 75 of Regulation No 40/94 and from the case-law that the Board of Appeal enjoys a discretion as to whether, where a party requests that they be held, oral proceedings before it are really necessary (Case T‑115/02 AVEX v OHIM – Ahlers (a) [2004] ECR II-2907, paragraph 30). 47 In the present case, it should be pointed out that the applicant essentially criticises the Board of Appeal because it did not have the possibility of submitting orally before the board the same facts and arguments previously set out in its written pleadings. Therefore, the applicant does not even claim that the Board of Appeal did not have before it all the information needed as a basis for the operative part of the contested decision. 48 It follows that the refusal of the Board of Appeal to hold an oral hearing cannot be criticised. 49 It follows that the third plea must also be dismissed. 50 Therefore, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 51 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the forms of order sought by OHIM and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs. Martins Ribeiro Wahl Dittrich Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 19 May 2010. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.