Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/37 |

---

Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)

(Case T-347/13)

2013/C 252/63

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hawe Hydraulik SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HaWi Energietechnik AG (Eggenfelden, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 April 2013 in Case R 1690/2012-4 relating to Community trade mark application No 6 558 589‘HAWI’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: HaWi Energietechnik AG

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HAWI’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 558 589

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘HAWE’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the declaration on oath; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the extracts from the Internet; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the assessment of the proof of use in its entirety; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the failure to take the proof of use into account; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 |

---

[Top](#document1)