Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:6
Date: 2015-01-14
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 3 April 2013 - dm-drogerie markt/OHIM - V-Contact (CAMEA) (Case T-195/13) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: B. Beinert and O. Bludovsky, lawyers) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: V-Contact Kft (Szada, Hungary) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, by way of correction, delete the applicant's trademark; Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation; Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1). Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "CAMEA" for, inter alia, goods in classes 3, 5 and 16 - Community trade mark application No 9 279 928 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration designating, inter alia, the European Union and covering goods in classes 3, 5 and 8 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009. ____________