CELEX: 62013TN0611
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-611/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)

25.1.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/34
            
         Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)
   (Case T-611/13)
   2014/C 24/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Australian Gold LLC (Indianapolis, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Effect Management & Holding GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria)
   
      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 10 September 2013 given in Case R 1881/2012-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the cost of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘HOT’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 16 and 25 — International registration designating the European Union No 797 277
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(c) CTMR
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Granted the application for a declaration of invalidity in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and Article 8(3) CTMR.