CELEX: 62008TN0137
Language: en
Date: 2008-04-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-137/08: Action brought on 9 April 2008 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of colours green and yellow)

7.6.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 142/33
            
         Action brought on 9 April 2008 — BCS v OHIM — Deere (Combination of colours green and yellow)
   (Case T-137/08)
   (2008/C 142/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: BCS SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi, V. Jandoli, F. Santonocito, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deere & Company (Moline, United States)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 January 2008 in case R 0222/2007-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A figurative mark consisting of the colour combination of green and yellow for goods in classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark No 63 289
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Deere & Company
   
      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3), 52(1)(c) in connection with Article 8(4) and Article 73(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as:
   
               —
            
            
               the Board of Appeal ought to have interpreted Article 7(3) very strictly and, accordingly, should have imposed a rigorous burden of proof on the other party to the proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Board of Appeal failed to recognize the prior de facto trade mark of the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Board of Appeal used contradictory reasoning in its decision.