Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/42 |

---

Action brought on 4 December 2009 — Jager & Polacek v OHIM- RT Mediasolutions (REDTUBE)

(Case T-488/09)

2010/C 37/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

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) No R 442/2009-4 of 29 September 2009; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: RT Mediasolutions s.r.o

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘REDTUBE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41 (Application No 6 096 309)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jager & Polacek GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: a non-registered trade mark ‘Redtube’

Decision of the Opposition Division: The notice of opposition is deemed not to have been entered

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96[(1)](#ntr1-C_2010037EN.01004201-E0001) in conjunction with Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009[(2)](#ntr2-C_2010037EN.01004201-E0002), since the applicant was not given an opportunity to submit a reply; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 80(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the decision on the admissibility of the opposition had not been legally annulled. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, and more particularly of the principle of legitimate expectations, in conjunction with Article 41(3) of the same Regulation, Rule 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95[(3)](#ntr3-C_2010037EN.01004201-E0003) und Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95[(4)](#ntr4-C_2010037EN.01004201-E0004), since the applicant entertained reasonable expectations that the delay in lodging the opposition fee was remedied by the paymentwithin the prescribed time limit of the additional payment. |

---

[Top](#document1)