Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/4 |

---

Action brought on 8 August 2013 — Le Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)

(Case T-405/13)

2013/C 284/06

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Le Comptoir d'Épicure (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH (Rostock, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 May 2013 in case R 1195/2012-5; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM and A-Rosa Akademie GmbH to pay the costs |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Le Comptoir d'Épicure

Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark with word elements ‘da rosa’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — International registration No 1 047 095 designating the European Union

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National, international and Community word marks ‘aROSA’ and national and international figurative marks with the word elements ‘aROSA Lust auf Schiff’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition is upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The action is dismissed

Pleas in law:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | First plea, alleging a contradiction in the reasoning , if not an excess of authority; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Second plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 34(1) and 35 of Regulation No 207/2009; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95, and of Article 78(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of general principles of law, of the hierarchy of legal rules and a manifest error of assessment; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sixth plea, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2868/95; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Seventh plea, alleging a manifest error concerning the relevant public and the assessment of the signs; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Eighth plea: the distinctive character of the earlier mark in Classes 39, 43 and 44. |

---

[Top](#document1)