CELEX: 62012TN0184
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-184/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

7.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 200/18
            
         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)
   (Case T-184/12)
   2012/C 200/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach/Lochhofen, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Springvale, Australia)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2012 in Case R 1956/2010-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 35 — application No 7 296 676
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the unregistered word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’, which is protected in Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom for inter alia heaters
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 75 and the second part of Article 76(1) of that regulation