Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:559
Date: 2008-12-10
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Action brought on 1 December 2006 - Bateaux Mouches v OHIM - Castanet (BATEAUX MOUCHES) (Case T-365/06) Language in which the application was lodged: French Parties Applicant: SA Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches (Paris, France) (represented by: D. de Leusse, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jean-Noël Castanet (Paris, France) Form of order sought The Court is asked to: Declare the action by Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches admissible; Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1, Castanet v Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches); Order OHIM to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark 'Bateaux Mouches' for services in Classes 39, 41 and 42 - Community trade mark No 1 336 122 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Jean-Noël Castanet Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for cancellation Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/941 on the grounds that the contested decision wrongly held the applicant's trade mark to be descriptive and without distinctive character and inasmuch as it held that the applicant had not proved that its trade mark had acquired by usage a distinctive character for the services concerned. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p.1).