Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/36 |

---

Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Voss of Norway v OHIM — Nordic Spirit (Three-dimensional ‘bottle’)

(Case T-178/11)

2011/C 145/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Voss of Norway ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordic Spirit AB (pubI) (Stockholm, Sweden)

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 12 January 2011 in case R 785/2010-1; 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 three-dimensional mark representing a ‘bottle’, for goods in classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 3156163

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and that the proprietor of the Community trade mark acted in bad faith when filing the application pursuant to Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75, 99 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as well as infringement of Rule 37(b)(iv) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its motivation by basing it on a new requirement for establishing validity of three-dimensional trademarks, on which the applicant did not had the opportunity to present its comments; (ii) in shifting the onus of proof in violation of fair trials principles; (iii) in misinterpreting and misapplying Article 7(1)(b) of the CTMR; and (iv) by seriously distorting the facts in order to arrive at the wrong conclusion.

---

[Top](#document1)