CELEX: 62008TN0423
Language: en
Date: 2008-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-423/08: Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT 2000 v OHIM

6.12.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 313/43
            
         Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT 2000 v OHIM
   (Case T-423/08)
   (2008/C 313/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): INTER-NETT 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 Kft) (Mór, Hungary) (represented by: E. Petruska, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Agricultores, S.A. (El Ejido, Spain)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: INTER-NETT 2000
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘HUNGARO’ for goods and services in classes 29, 31 and 35 (application No 004508917).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Unión de Agricultores, S.A.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘UNIAGRO’ for goods in class 31.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
   
      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that OHIM misinterpreted that provision, and breach of Article 12(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the decision of OHIM prevents the applicant from using the name of its proprietor and the designation of the geographical origin of the goods.