do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-197/13: Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)
Date: 2013-04-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Monaco, interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013156EN.01005101.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/51





Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)
(Case T-197/13)
2013/C 156/93
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MARQUES DE L’ÉTAT DE MONACO (M.E.M.) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

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 29 January 2013 in Case R 113/2012-4;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘MONACO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 43 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 069 254

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Second plea, alleging infringement of the law in the interpretation of distinctiveness










—


Third plea, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of distinctiveness










—


Fourth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, insufficient reasoning or contradictory reasons for the refusal of registration for the goods in Class 9










—


Fifth plea, alleging the infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground of insufficient reasoning