CELEX: 62008TN0450
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-450/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Coverpla v OHIM — Heinz-Glas (design)

10.1.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/34
            
         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Coverpla v OHIM — Heinz-Glas (design)
   (Case T-450/08)
   (2009/C 6/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Coverpla (Nice, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and M. Chaminade, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Heinz-Glas GmbH (Kleintettau, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 7 July 2008 (Case R 1411/2007-3) in so far as it dismissed the applicant's appeal and declared the Community design ‘Tour’ No 29178-0002 invalid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare Community design ‘Tour’ No 29178-0002 in class 09-01 valid.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 29178/0002 for ‘phials’
   
      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Heinz-Glas GmbH
   
      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: An unregistered phial named ‘Empire’ (reference number F 3990)
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community design
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: The Community design does have the requisite novelty; the documents which Heinz-Glas GmbH submitted to show that it disclosed to the public a prior design of an identical phial have no evidential value.