CELEX: 62013TN0188
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-188/13: Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)

1.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/49
            
         Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
   (Case T-188/13)
   2013/C 156/90
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Healing Herbs Ltd (Walkerstone, United Kingdom)
   
      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 4 February 2013 in Case R 132/2012-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘NOTFALL’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 30 — Community trade mark No 9 089 681
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Healing Herbs Ltd
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009