Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/31 |

---

Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM — TeliaSonera Denmark (Shade of magenta)

(Case T-583/10)

2011/C 55/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeliaSonera Denmark A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

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 22 October 2010 in case R 463/2009-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case, 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 colour mark consisting in a shade of magenta for services in classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 212787

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 Articles 4 and 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Closed the case following the withdrawal of the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to properly assess the admissibility of the appeal, and (ii) violated Articles 85(3) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, by denying the legitimate interest to continue the proceedings.

---

[Top](#document1)