CELEX: 62010TN0074
Language: en
Date: 2010-02-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-74/10: Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Flaco Geräte v OHIM — Delgado Sánchez (FLACO)

17.4.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 100/64
            
         Action brought on 16 February 2010 — Flaco Geräte v OHIM — Delgado Sánchez (FLACO)
   (Case T-74/10)
   2010/C 100/94
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Flaco Geräte GmbH (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jesús Delgado Sánchez (Socuellamos, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2009 in case R 86/2009-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLACO’, for goods in classes 7, 8, 9 and 11
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration of the mark ‘FLACO’, for goods in class 7
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application for the Community trade mark
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly took into account a wrong translation of the goods covered by the mark cited in the opposition proceedings; infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not take into account the plea of non use filed by the applicant.