Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/34 |

---

Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)

(Case T-507/08)

(2009/C 19/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2008 in case R 1012/2007-2 and remit the application for a declaration of invalidity to the OHIM to allow it to proceed, and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘16PF’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 892 652

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) should have found on the evidence before it that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of any distinctive character; (ii) failed to apply the correct legal test and failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it; and (iii) should have found on the evidence before it that the application for the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was made in bad faith.

---

[Top](#document1)