CELEX: 62009TN0506
Language: en
Date: 2009-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-506/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)

27.2.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 51/37
            
         Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
   (Case T-506/09)
   2010/C 51/71
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: The Carlyle, LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mascha & Regner Consulting KEG (Vienna, Austria)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 240/2009-4; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation: The word mark ‘THE CARLYLE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 25 and 42
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially rejected the request for revocation
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Revoked the Community trade mark concerned
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously employed a too restrictive interpretation of the concept of genuine use. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to take into consideration properly the evidence of use submitted by the applicant before the Cancellation Division; (ii) to assess correctly the scope of the said evidence of use; and (iii) to make an overall assessment thereof.