CELEX: 62012TN0470
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-470/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)

26.1.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 26/51
            
         Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)
   (Case T-470/12)
   2013/C 26/103
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sothys Auriac (Auriac, France) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grand Hotel Primavera SA (Borgo Maggiore, Saint-Martin)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present action to be admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2012 on Case R 11419/2011-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM 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: BEAUTY GARDEN for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 456 134
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grand Hotel Primavera SA
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEAUTY GARDEN’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal rejected in part and decision of the Cancellation Division annulled in part and revised by the Board of Appeal.
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 76(1) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the general principle that reasons must be given in OHIM decisions and that the adversarial nature of proceedings must be observed.