Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/24 |

---

Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Peeters Landbouwmachines v OHIM — Fors MW (BIGAB)

(Case T-33/11)

2011/C 80/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Peeters Landbouwmachines BV (Etten-Leur, Netherlands) (represented by: P.N.A.M. Claassen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AS Fors MW (Saue, Republic of Estonia)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 November 2010 in case R 210/2010-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity, or order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity as far as it concerns the registration for Class 7; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘BIGAB’ for goods in classes 6, 7 and 12 — Community trade mark registration No 4363842

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 party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute and relative grounds for invalidity pursuant to Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant contends that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of bad faith and failed to recognise the importance of similarity between the goods covered by the compared trade marks.

---

[Top](#document1)