Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:761
Date: 2011-12-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 13 February 2009 - Rintisch v OHIM - Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK) (Case T-62/09) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, France) Form of order sought Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 December 2008 in case R 740/2008-4; and Order OHIM to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "PROTI SNACK", for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 - application No 4 992 145 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 397 02 429 of the word mark "PROTI" for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 396 08 644 of the figurative mark "PROTIPOWER" for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 395 49 559 of the word mark "PROTIPLUS" for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 396 29 195 of the trade word "PROTITOP" for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to provide an assessment on the merits of the opposition; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal refused to exercise its discretion or at least failed to state how it exercised such discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant. ____________