Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/42 |

---

Action brought on 11 April 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)

(Case T-152/09)

2009/C 153/82

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: 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: Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, 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 3 February 2009 in case R 1661/2007-4; 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 “PROTIACTIVE”, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — application No 4 843 348

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 5 and 29

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[(1)](#ntr1-C_2009153EN.01004201-E0001) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to assess the opposition on its merits; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 76(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise discretion or at least failed to state reasons how it exercised discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal erred by not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.

---

[Top](#document1)