Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/23 |

---

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)

(Case T-234/06)

(2006/C 261/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giampietro Torresan (Schonenfels, Switzerland) (represented by: Gianluca Recher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 29 June 2006 in proceedings R 517/2005-2, notified by fax of 5 July 2006, and confirm the registration of the Community trade mark CANNABIS for Classes 32 and 33; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in any case, order the costs of all of the proceedings to be reimbursed, including those of the previous two appeals before OHIM. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘CANNABIS’ (application for registration No 1.073.349), for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 42.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: The applicant for the declaration of invalidity does not claim any trade mark right. The declaration of invalidity is applied for in respect of goods in Classes 32 (beer) and 33 (wine, spirits, liqueurs, sparkling wine, champagne).

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity partially granted, annulment of the registration of the Community trade mark as regards the products claimed in Classes 32 and 33.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and contradiction in the grounds of the contested decision.

---

[Top](#document1)