Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:171
Date: 2011-04-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (orders of the General Court of 28 April 1993 in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, paragraph 20, and of 21 May 1999 in Case T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1703, paragraph 49; and Case T‑277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II‑1825, paragraphs 28 and 29). 100 Since Safariland is alleging breach of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in a general manner, without relying on specific arguments, the third part of the present plea must be rejected as inadmissible. 101 In any event, even if that claim could be interpreted as meaning that Safariland is submitting that the contested decision was not based on the legal and factual particulars put forward by the parties to the opposition proceedings, in so far as it found that there was no agent-principal relationship as required under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, that claim must be rejected as unfounded, in the light of the considerations set out in the context of the plea alleging breach of the second sentence of Article 75 of that regulation. 102 Furthermore, as was stated during the examination of the second plea, alleging breach of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (see paragraphs 42 to 50 above), the Board of Appeal was right to find that the General Court had not ruled on the existence of an agent-principal relationship between the parties to the opposition proceedings, justifying the application of Article 8(3) of that regulation, and that it had examined all the conditions laid down in that provision. 103 Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Board of Appeal did not put forward new grounds for refusal, but based its assessment on the relative ground for refusal put forward by Safariland, alleging breach of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. The parties to the opposition proceedings sufficiently expressed their views on the application of that provision in the course of the administrative procedure which preceded the adoption of the decision of 2004 and there was therefore no need to hear them again with regard to the assessment criteria which led to the adoption of the contested decision. Consequently, in adopting the contested decision, the Board of Appeal did not breach Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. 104 In the light of the foregoing, the third plea must be rejected and, in consequence, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 105 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. As Safariland has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by OHIM and DEF-TEC. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Safariland LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH. Martins Ribeiro Papasavvas Dittrich Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 April 2011. [Signatures] Table of contents Background to the dispute Forms of order sought Law 1. The second plea: breach of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court 2. The first plea: breach of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court The first condition: proprietorship of the earlier marks The second condition: the existence of an agent-principal relationship 3. The third plea: infringement of the right to be heard and breach of Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court The first and second parts of the third plea – The right of the parties to the opposition proceeding to be heard in respect of the interpretation of the General Court’s judgment – The statement of the reasons on which the contested decision was based The third part of the third plea Costs * Language of the case: English.