Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:647
Date: 2015-09-18
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Action brought on 26 July 2013 – Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM – Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE) (Case T-387/13) Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish Parties Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadine Helene Jeanne Hautrive (Chatou, France) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: vary the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2013 in Case R 757/2012-5, on the basis that, in the present case, the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration under Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met; or, failing which, annul the contested decision; and, in any event, order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nadine Helene Jeanne Hautrive Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word elements ‘COLOMBIANO HOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 43 – Community trade mark application No 9 225 798 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant Mark or sign cited in opposition: Protected Geographical Indication with word elements ‘Café de Colombia’ Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006 Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006 Breach of a procedural requirement through failure to state reasons