Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |

---

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

(Case T-449/13)

2013/C 304/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 33/2012-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark in colours green, red and gold, representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal element ‘WISENT’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 5 142 039

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR)[(1)](#ntr1-C_2013304EN.01002202-E0001)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(5) in conjunction with 76(1), 75, 76(1) and (2) CTMR.

---

[Top](#document1)