CELEX: 62014TN0072
Language: en
Date: 2014-01-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-72/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)

7.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 102/37
            
         Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)
   (Case T-72/14)
   2014/C 102/58
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the action admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Vary the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of word mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ for services in Class 37 (No 1 092 478)
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
            
         
               —
            
            
               Incorrect finding that the disputed mark had not acquired by usage a distinctive character for the services covered