Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:527
Date: 2008-11-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks applied for;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 26 July 2007 - Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v OHIM - Artoz-Papier (ATOZ) (Case T-100/06) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Deepak Rajani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Dustmann, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artoz-Papier AG (Lenzburg, Switzerland) Form of order sought Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 January 2006 (case R 1126/2004-2) order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deepak Rajani Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark "ATOZ" for services in classes 35 and 41 - application No 1 319 961 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Artoz-Papier AG Mark or sign cited: The international and national word mark "ARTOZ" for services in classes 35 and 41 Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: The applicant alleges that the contested decision was rendered in violation of Article 43(2) and (3) of the CTMR insofar as it adopted an undue interpretation of the trademark's registration term. According to the applicant such ultra vires interpretation of Community, national and international laws amounts to a misuse of power. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Board's decision is in breach of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. Finally, the applicant contends that both the opposition division and the Board of Appeal have substantially infringed the procedural safeguards of Articles 73 and 79 of the CTMR due to an alleged lack of reasoning and a violation of the right to be heard. ____________